Mario Freedom's Space: Every

The President has abandoned the principles of the Laws of War and Peace that began with Hugo Grotius publishing his book of that title in 1625....One principle of International Law is sovereignty. It is a difficult concept and particularly difficult to reconcile with the notion of natural law. Which sovereign powers are legitimate and which are not? ....Over time his views took root and there did develop something called "International Law" and the Laws of Nations. There were even recognized principles sort of regulating war.
The long tradition of development of International Law was supposed to come to a triumphant conclusion with the creation of the United Nations: but the UN seems now to be a popular mechanism for interference in the internal affairs of sovereign nations...My tentative conclusion is that we have a new definition of "sovereign". Sovereign nations have nukes. Those who do not have nukes are not sovereign and may be judged by the UN Security Council, and possibly by American Intellectuals, and deposed by Great Powers acting in concert, or even by UN "Peace Keeping" forces depending on the military strength of the non-sovereign. Non-sovereign states may be overthrown.... have no brief for the governments of Iran, Burma, Syria and such. Under the old International Law those were sovereign entities. As of today, they are not, and they are on notice that they are not. Sovereigns are those who have nukes. Those who do not have nukes can find themselves under fire from rebels armed and aided by the Great Powers, even when the Great Powers have not the foggiest notion of who those rebels are. It is not important who takes charge: it is important that the old rulers go. No safe place for them to go will be provided and the World Court waits with its prisons. Sun Tzu said we should build golden bridges for our enemies, but we are not taking that advice: we are burning the bridges for Gaddafi and his sons. ....He has few choices: he faces death for himself and his sons and much of his clan. He is not sovereign. Unlike Dear Leader in North Korea, who faces the same fate, but who is sovereign under the new rules. I suspect this is all being closely followed in Syria. And perhaps in Saudi Arabia as well?

It's a matter of sovereignty.

\******************************************
This is very much my view but it is frightening to have it confirmed.

A world where de facto sovereignty depends on having nukes is one where lots more countries are going to have them. The more there are the more the likelihood they will be used. This is not just an arithmetic growth function but a geometric one because when everybody has them and one is used who will be sure where it came from. If that doesn't frighten you??

It is not the first time that technology has determined political culture. Under the feudal syatem the sovereign had only limited powers because his nobles had castles which could not, without a long and doubtful siege, be captured. Then cannon came along. Only kings could afford to keep a permanet artillery train which meant they, alone, could easily destroy their subject's fortifications and the modern definition of sovereignty, Grotius's, arose.

I do not see this new soverignty being limited to nuclear weapons. During WW2 the Germans developed the nerve gas Sarin - one bomb of which could have killed an area similar to Hiroshima. Indeed nerve gas has been described as the poor nation's atom bomb. The same applies to biological warfare. Possibly even more important than the weapon is the delivery system, but even there they need not be ICBMs but can be cruise missiles. Even a suicide squadron of Censna's will be very difficult to stop.

Almost any country can regain its sovereignty by such means. At one time the SNP had a defence spokesman who said that Scotland's defence policy should be to buy some missiles and gas and declare ourselves a major power. When the leadership noticed they fired him.

Which is why western policy has been so disasterous. During the cold war both sides stuck, fairly closely to the leter of international law (both sides denounced each other for breaking the spirit but law is about law not "spirit"). After the west won our leaders showed a total contempt for international law. Our war against Yugoslavia broke soverignty, the law, human decency and our most solemn treaty commitments. Yugoslavia had been the 4th country in the world to develop a nuclear pile and made a deliberate decision, in the 1970s, not to develop a Bomb because it would have destabilised Europe. That was a noble decision but, with hindsight, overly trusting. Equally (well not quite equally because Yugoslavia was a law respecting democracy an Libya isn't) a few years ago Gaddafi made the deliberate decision to exit the "Axis of Evil" and receive western friendship in return for giving up his nuclear ambitions and the missiles he did have, which were, at least theoretically, capable of bringing weapons of mass destruction to most of Europe's cities. Clearly one of Gaddafi's failures has been being overly trusting of the integrity of our political leaders. What chance now any other nation will make the same mistake?

If we want a world where the next SNP leader will not feel compelled to accept the advice mentioned above. The UN's alleged "authorisation" of bombing Libya is unlawful because the UN Charter is absolutely clear that it does not have authority to interfere within national sovereignty. We have to start respecting that. At the very least we should not support Libyan rebels by bombing anywhere to the west of rebel occupied territory, rather than encouraging them to kill Gaddaffi, his children, his grandchildren, relatives and pets. We should either get rid of the ICC or prove it is a serious attempt at strengthening international law by bringing those western leaders against whom there is an indisputable case, or even one little stronger than the case we brought against Milosvic, of the war crime of pursuing a criminal war against Yugoslavia and perhaps also Iraq and Libya. Nothing less can produce political pressure towards the rule of law and against everybody who can going armed.

A technical semi-answer would be revamping SDI but the probelm with that remains that if it is done by a single nation others allowing it would be consenting to world sovereignty being in that nation's hands (USA or China and currently China is the more credible space power). It also doesn't work 100% or against cruise missiles, short range missiles or the Cesna Suicide Squadron. An SDI in the UN hands, or some other international body, would only work if the UN etc was visibly a supporter of international, law and could be trusted - which Libya proves is not the case.

I have previously proposed the creation of an open access computer programme to act as judge of international law. I think that would earn far more trust than Obama, the UN, Nato, or indeed the Chinese Praesidium combined.

As normal Heinlein had the last word decades ago.

A worse point is that a commercial space craft is a potential commercial ICBM. We may see pressure to prevent them existing. A world government that could do that could stop all human progress as Professor John McCarthy has said. In the 1980s Dr Pournelle warned that we might be in a race between
technological progress and exhaustion of Earth's resources leaving us stuck here. That did not happen because both the resources and human inginuity proved greater. However we may now be in a race between everybody having WMDs and consequent wars; a capricious world government smothering freedom and progress; & the technological future we know is possible.

View the original article here

Tuesday, 29 March 2011

The Scroll of Revelation, 29 - An Antichrist in Every Empire

Revelation 17:3, 8-14, Commentary, Part 2

The unveiling of the antichrist

I suggest that the first of the five "fallen" kings of John's vision could well be Nimrod, followed by the Assyrian Sennacherib.

Who then is third of the five? Babylon returns to power in the early 600's B.C., and of the "Neo-Babylonian" kings, the greatest by far is Nebuchadnezzar. He is so great, and so powerful, and so creative, and so against Israel at times, that the fallen ruler Saddam Hussein is convinced that Nebuchadnezzar should be brought back to life in his (Saddam's) own person! To this end he "rebuilt" Babylon on a miniature scale, and placed his own name on every brick.

Nebuchadnezzar's reign is well documented in Biblical and extra-Biblical sources. He is in Kings and Chronicles and Isaiah and Daniel. He beseiged Jerusalem, and took King Jehoiachin prisoner, as now backslidden Judah is not even to be protected from the invader. Their sin is just too heavy a burden around their neck, and they must go down. He carries away first much of Jewish treasure and people, leaving only the poor (II Kings 24:13-14). He builds a siege wall around Jerusalem (25:1), kills King Zedekiah's sons, even blinding Zedekiah in the process (25:7). He burns the temple (25:9), captures the rest of the people (25:11) and actually places in the Temple of Marduk at Babylon, the treasures from the Temple of God (II Chronicles 36:7). Marduk is a mythical descendant of Nimrod, and one can even see three letters of Nimrod's name in the later manifestation.

Now it should be seen that, as Jeremiah recounts in chapters 21, 22, and 27 of his prophecy, Nebuchadnezzar is a "servant" of the Lord, even though unwittingly and for his own reasons. He is God's whipping-boy for His people. But as Pharaoh was raised up for the purposes of God and later drowned in the Red Sea, so judgment will fall on Nebuchadnezzar and Babylon for their treatment of Israel (Jeremiah 50-51).

Daniel recounts incidents in Nebuchadnezzar's life, subsequent to the fall of Jerusalem. His insights into the varying degrees of that monarch's devotion to Yahweh are helpful in our understanding of his heart. Nebuchadnezzar seemed to be pleased with Daniel and his Jewish companions, as he had been with Jeremiah before them, yet he continued on in his idolatry and especially his unbearable pride. The image of gold (Daniel 3) which by the way previews the image of the beast (Revelation 13), was erected to remind citizens of the greatness of the King. This statue became the reason for the punishment of the three young Hebrew friends of Daniel. Yet God breaks through into Nebuchadnezzar's life by saving them from the fiery furnace. Earlier, Daniel's revelation of the meaning of a troubling dream had likewise awakened him to the greatness of the God of Israel. His respect grows from merely including the true God with his own gods, to honoring that God as supreme, but never to worshiping Yahweh alone.

Later in the story (Daniel 4) we see Nebuchadnezzar thinking back on his glory with satisfaction and pride. At this point he is humbled before the Empire, but is later restored. Altogether then, a proud, sometimes blasphemous, idolatrous, anti-semitic King of Babylon was this Nebuchadnezzar, and for that reason we can include him in the list of antichrists.

Babylonia falls again, and is replaced by Persia whose Cyrus the Great conquered Babylon in 536 B.C. Here it becomes more difficult to find a man who fills the bill as "man of sin" of the hour. Yet, judging from the description of the Revelation 13 beast in terms of animals, there is no doubt that the bear, or Persia, must be included in the history of the man of sin. Now, the Persian Emperors were despotic and often cruel, and definitely worshiped the wrong god. However, they were by and large friendly to Israel. Cyrus, who inherited the captive Jews, immediately released them. Succeeding rulers tried to support the growing state of Israel against foreign elements of that day who did not want her to prosper.

And were the Persian kings also "King of Babylon"? Yes, until the coming of Xerxes, several Emperors later, this was the honorary title they claimed. And Xerxes? Though he is a "legitimate" King of Babylon, it is said he "illegitimized" several generations of coming rulers by storming the Babylonian Temple of Marduk, aka Nimrod. The idea is that it is Nimrod who gives authority to the King. No Nimrod, no King. Knowing that that was the feeling, even in Persia, lets us believe that we are on the right track in looking only at these Babylonian kings as candidates for the man of sin. Alexander the Great, it is said, restored Marduk to his place, and for many generations the Greek Rulers wore the title again.So, for example, the Bible's Artaxerxes (Ezra 4) is not a King of Babylon, whereas Ahasuerus (Xerxes, Book of Esther) and Cyrus (II Chronicles 36:22-23) are, for the above reason. Could either of them be the "antichrist" of the Persian Empire?

Consider the book of Esther, and the wicked plot of Haman, the highest ranking official in the court of Xerxes (if indeed Ahasuerus and Xerxes are the same person, as many believe).

Though the Persian ruler was not possessed of hatred for the Jews, he did submit to Haman's Hitler-like plot that all Jews be destroyed. Genocide, we call it today. Through the intervention of Esther, the wickedness of Haman and Xerxes was superceded by a plan for Jewish self-defense. But it would seem that any ruler who, as King of Babylon, decreed the extinction of God's people, whatever his ignorance or motivation, would qualify as a candidate for "beast."

Next the great Alexander storms through the Persian Empire in the name of Macedonia and Greece. The Greek Empire follows. Alexander is King of Babylon in name, and yet he favors and spares Israel in his conquests. When he dies, his kingdom is divided four ways, as prophesied by Daniel. Out of one of these splits (Daniel 8:8-9) comes "the little horn." Bible scholars who are convinced the Bible is not totally true tell us that that horn must be Antiochus Epiphanes, ruler of the largest portion of the Greek domain. Bible believers, however, point out that, no, this cannot be Epiphanes, for the passages about what happens are always couched in an end-time setting. Perhaps it is time for these two positions to merge and declare that it is possible for one man to live in two eras. Of course, he must be resurrected to do that. As you know now, this is what I believe happens.

Consider the wickedness of Antiochus and see if he qualifies to be an "antichrist". He was treacherous and deceitful. He wore the title "King of Babylon." He was driven out of Egypt by the Romans and in fury he unleashed evil on Jerusalem. He broke a treaty with that city in order to plunder the Temple for its wealth. He forbade Jewish sacrifices, according to Josephus, for three and one-half years. He slaughtered many Jews. He burned buildings, knocked down city walls. He built an idol altar on God's altar, and sacrificed pigs on it. This is the Old Testament version of the "abomination of desolation." But Jesus in his day said that that abomination was still future. He referred people to the book of Daniel. But it had already happened. But it will happen again. Do you see the confusion regarding this man Antiochus? Is he the "once and future" king?

Antiochus compelled Jews to forsake their worship, making them build temples to his gods. He allowed no circumcision. Many yielded to these pressures. Those who did not were whipped. Or torn to pieces. Or crucified. Or strangled. The Book of Law was destroyed. He was a proud man obsessed with his own worth and deity. On coins you will see his name as Theos Epiphanes "God Manifest", the very description of the Son of God (I Timothy 3:16 ).

We mentioned above also the strange case of Daniel 11. No one questions that 11:21-35 has to do with the wicked reign of Epiphanes. But 36-45? With hardly a clue we are suddenly in the end times, even on into chapter 12 where history is climaxed. From 11:36 to the end is antichrist, all say. But if you blink you'll think for sure it is Antiochus, though none of these things ever happened in his life! I wonder if the Spirit is saying right here in plain sight that this latter-day figure is also Antiochus, raised from the dead?

Nimrod, Sennacherib, Nebuchadnezzar, Xerxes, Epiphanes. These five have fallen. One is. Now, since we live in the same Roman era in which John lived there is a sense in which that "one" still is! The Empire that ruled in John's day has never been replaced, only greatly diminished. If we were to use Daniel's statue vision (Daniel 2) as an outline of history, it would begin with Nebuchadnezzar's Neo-Babylonia, according to the interpretation, continue to Medo-Persia, then Greece, and finally Rome, the "two legs" which would attach to the feet kingdom of the last days. We still live in the "legs" days of Rome. When the Spirit opens the eyes to this revelation, my but does one's world view change!

Look for Bob Faulkner's creations on http://professorenglish.org There you will find a variety of Scripture studies, including a through-the-Bible course, in video, audio, and text. There are works about the Christ, the antichrist, the rapture, and more. For those who love North Korea, I have created http://chosunhouse.com. As for me, I'm a man found of God over 50 years ago, called to the ministry, serving in tentmaker style with my wife and my local church in Chicagoland. Contact me at diakonos3@gmail.com