Not just another ism; it's the why of what has been happening. Here are a couple of references to get you caught up on this phenomenon:
I found this article to be profound in its insight into the reality of relations between Israelis and Palestinians living in the camps. Note that this speech comes to you from Tel Aviv.
The fact that there are Jews who have the freedom to say these things while the same views cannot be articulated by mainstream presidential candidates in the USA is testament to the influence of Armageddonist clout here.
All is not lost yet. You can make a difference. You can help to be part of the new generation of hope which has the audacity to talk-back to the doom-and-gloomers.
It seams that for all his good intentions, Barak Obama is suffering from the effects of the Armageddon bug. While trying to reach-out for the Evengelical vote, he was poisoned by their world view and is now grapling to make sense of the world as seen through their point of view.
Here's how you know Obama has bought into the Armageddonist Hype: when instead of tempering the call to violence coming from the Pat Robertsons and Hagees of the world he joins the choir and sings along. Here are a few google hits from today when searching Obama Iraq:
John Hagee had the audacity to propose a war scenario which is in-line with his Armageddonist Ideology. And what's wrong with FOX NEWS that they let this happen?
Has FOX News exposed itself as the quintissential anti-American news show? Isn't John Hagee really saying "Death to America" by advocating policies which in his belief system should destroy the world in the process of bringing back Jesus.
What if a congressman or representative were to come out and say, "I only care about national security. And all my decisions are based solely on secular considerations; my religious views have nothing to do with policy making decisions."
Is this person really secular? Or an Armageddonist in secular clothing?
To answer this question you need to address not only how to neutralize national security threats, but also how this threat came to be.
If you think of the national security threat as a flooded swamp. Solving the threat means clearing the swamp. It doesn't make sense to just pump out the water. You need to cut off the various streams which replenish the swamp. If you don't do this, you will end up having to clear the swamp endlessly. Just when you think you are done, here it fills up again.
It is madness to keep doing the same thing, yet expect different results.
This is the example of the policy maker who asserts his/her desire to eliminate national security threats, yet fails to cut off the sources whose sole intent is to exacerbate the threats.
What if a small group of evil people wanting to destroy the middle-east for the purpose of fulfilling Bible-Prophesy in hopes of bringing back Jesus Christ were instrumental in maintaining the blockade over Iraq which resulted in the deaths of something like a million people.
Suppose that the Iraqis did not like that and that certain individuals who sympathized with them were to inflict violent acts toward our country because of it.
There should be no doubt that we must defend ourselves from the threats coming at us. Equaly, we must not give a free pass to those who hide behind a moral agenda in order to direct our foreign policy in ways which seek to fulfill their odd interpretations of prophesy. To them, Armageddon is a mission to be accomplished; not merely prophesy to be observed.
Of course Armageddonists are free to believe as they want. However, it is shameful that secular people tolerate people with such frames of mind to control foreign policy. Suppose that the so called secular leaders knew about these people's goals and desires; yet neither criticized them nor tried to warn of the danger they pose.
Does that not mean that the so called secular leaders are more unpatriotic that the religious zealots who hope to bring about Armageddon; simply because they provide the cover under which Armageddonists will destroy our society from within?
Think about it.
I started reading up on Hitchens after viewing his commentary on the legacy of Jerry Falwell. Somehow he manages to both hate Falwell and support the Iraq war. Any ideas why? From watching the video below, you make your own conclusion:
Some people in their rush to scrub clean Falwell's legacy ignore the fact that when all is said and done, Falwell advocated a speedy destruction of the world due to his staunch support for Armageddon. Very disappointing.
Here is Christopher Hitchin's summary of Falwell's legacy:
If only Barack Obama would stand up to this menacing Armageddonism so many evangelicals rally around instead of trying to "reach out" to them. Unless of course by reaching out he means to correct their tendency to support the road to Armageddon. I think this may be the direction he should take, but somehow I imagine it is too hot of a topic to touch even for Obama. To his credit he does mention that Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are negative influences on the evangelicals:
"...if we don't reach out to evangelical Christians and other religious Americans and tell them what we stand for, Jerry Falwell's and Pat Robertson's will continue to hold sway." [source]However he does not, and I believe no politician is able to directly criticize the addiction to Armageddon which these bible thumpers spew from their pulpits.
The Winograd Reort exposes a stark difference between the Jewish Zionist vision for Israel and the "Christian Zionist" (Armageddonist) vision for Israel.
The Jewish desire is summed up by the Winograd report which notes "Foreign Ministry not sufficiently included during war in Lebanon." This shows that Israelis would very much like to settle differences without having to unleash the arsenal of weapons Armageddonists have so generously put into their hands.
On the other hand, if you look at what Armageddonist preachers and cheerleaders on the Right Wing are saying, the only problem with the destruction of Lebanon is that it does not go far enough. See this fox news video for how the Armageddonists think:
In 1998, the official American policy in the middle-east was land for peace. When John Hagee was asked how he felt about his vision for Israel (ie: no land for peace; rather Israelis and Palestinians should annihilate each other in the battle of Armageddon as prophesied so that the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ may return) differing from U.S. policy, Hagee replied: "I am a Bible scholar and a theologian and from my perspective, the law of God transcends the law of the United States government and the United States State Department. The United States wants Israel to surrender territory for Palestinian promises of peace."
Now how patriotic does that sound?
The reason six Muslim leaders were pulled from US Airways has to do with suspicions which are mainly fanned not by events at the airport or inside the plane, but rather by rhetoric coming from Armageddonists like televangelist John Hagee, slick Pat Robertson, the esteemed Rep. Virgil Goode, and dittohead Rush Limbaugh.
The chief players however are televangelists who claim to teach people the truth and feed their flock utterly hateful information bordering on the call to genocide on Rawandan radio before the genocide there.
It is highly likely that passengers who believe their Armageddonist teachers' lessons about Muslims will lie in order to thwart the "mandate" of Muslims, which the Armageddonists propound is the destruction of the non-Muslim.
There are many things which passnegers claim they heard from the Imams which are completely out of character for the Imams to say, and the Imams totally reject those allegations as in this article.
There are points of convergence and divergence between any two points of view. This applies to Zionism as well. There is the Jewish Zionist block on one hand and the Christian Zionist block. They agree on the present but disagree on the future.
They each want to see a strong Israel, but for different reasons. For Jewish Zionists, it's all about survival, while Christian Zionists are in it for the Second Coming. For them, a strong Israel is but a stepping stone to Armageddon; which is why "Armageddonist" is a more fitting name for people who hold such an ideology than "Christian Zionist".
The question which poses itself is: which one is using which? Is Jewish Zionism stronger than Christian Zionism so that it can steer it? or is it the other way around and Jewish Zionism is stronger so that it controls Christian Zionism?
From my research, I have concluded that Christian Zionism sawed the seeds of Jewish Zionism and nurtured it till it became a reality. So if this analysis is correct, then Jewish Zionists are acting unwittingly in the service of Christian Zionists.
Palestinians too, by supporting the notion of a separate but equal entity for themselves are aiding the Armageddonist plot. The more conflict Armageddoinsts see, the greater their satisfaction at the unfolding events and the higher their hope for a quick rapture (after a satisfying bout of Armageddon - aka battle for Jerusalem).
By being opposed to supporting a unification plan within Israel, Palestinians are doing themselves a disservice, and their people a disservice since they cannot hope to provide the most basic function of governments: that of providing security for their subjects. In light of this fact, by insisting on getting independence, they get sovereignty over nothing.
Armageddonists are busy lobbying to make sure that there is no such thing as a viable peace plan. As a Rabbi once said, "They are not interested in bringing the two parties to the negotiating table" (or something along those lines), which means they are more interested to see these two sides fight it outside, somewhere around the the area east, west, north, and south of the valley of Armageddon.
Therefore, anyone who contributes to the fulfillment of the Armageddonist goal of further mayhem stands accused of aiding this heresy, either intentionally or accidentally. Either way, the result is disastrous.
This is a book which Armageddonists would never in a million years endorse because they are not interested in peace, reconciliation, or progress. Rather, they are entirely motivated by their desire to see the world end as soon as possible in a war which should wipe out large parts of the Jewish and Arab worlds followed by the second coming of the "Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ," as they say.
Joel Kovel, being a conscious Jew - one who knows the desires of Armageddonists and how they set up Israel to be their Jesus bait - in writing this book which in essence short circuits all the investment of armament and ill-will Armageddonists have spent so far by promoting a paradigm shift from an Armageddon based peace plan to a democratic and unity peace plan. It is indeed a bold thing to say, there are not two sides to this conflict, only one.
Joel Kovel argues that the inner contradictions of Zionism have led Israel to a 'state-sponsored racism' fully as incorrigible as that of apartheid South Africa and deserving of the same resolution. Only a path toward a single-state secular democracy can provide the justice essential to healing the wounds of the Middle East [more...].
The Times's Baghdad bureau chief, John F. Burns, appeared on The Charlie Rose Show to discuss the situation in Iraq.
The Maliki Government is unable to rise above the urge for revenge. - John F. Burns
While Christian conservatives and hard-line neo-conservatives may see the developments after Sept. 11, 2001 in a positive light (after all, one might say that God and the United States have been given a larger piece of the planet with which to work), all Americans should be leery of any government that merges religiosity into political ends.[full article]
It's so lovely to see Armageddonists discussing Islam in such a way as to justify their intended goal of destroying the middle-east in order to bring about the second coming of Jesus Christ.
There will be 1000s of arguments to justify why we must (MUST MUST MUST) destroy Muslims. That is the reason they make these arguments (under the guise of standing up for our values).
One only look at the last 50 years. The absence of actual invasions of Europian countries by Muslims is the reason why they resort to trying to pull arguments from any period in time, pulling out the worst anicdotal evidence, shouting the world is about to crack unless we realize what a danger Muslims are to us.
After watching this clip, the point you should walk away with is that you have to make the connection between their motivation for seeking to prime their audience for war with Muslims and their sick belief in the inevitability of the battle of Armageddon and the tribulations which must afflict the world as part of the series of events leading up to the return of Jesus Christ.
Seemingly normal people who believe in the Armageddon - AKA the destruction of Babylon (Iraq), Persia (Iran), Lebanon, Syria, Kush (Somalia or Sudan, Pat Robertson isn't sure).
This site has a series of responses to the Armageddonists' accusations against Muslims and Islam.
John Hagee, the megachurch pastor who is the current face of Christian Zionism in the United States, depicted Jews as Christ killers in a recent interview. Hagee also stated that Muslims have a "mandate" to kill Christians and Jews and that God caused Hurricane Katrina to destroy New Orleans to prevent a scheduled gay parade. [more]
