Zenith 2016 part 4

The most penetrating response I received on the question of whether Obama could be the Antichrist came from Douglas W. Krieger, Dene McGriff, and S. Douglas Woodward when I learned of their scholarly argument (due out in book form in 2013 under the title “The Final Babylon”).

           Drawing upon historical comparisons between the current administration’s rise to power and that of the Third Reich, the following excerpt is used by permission and should be required reading by Christians in particular:

We begin by proposing a troubling issue for the reader’s consideration: If Antichrist were to be revealed in America, would the faithful recognize him? Would Americans committed to spiritual values miss the same clues disclosing Antichrist’s true nature as did the Germans with Hitler?

There is little doubt that if a figure paraded himself in front of the American people resembling an easily stereotyped leader of the Third Reich—with a mousy moustache, an armband, and wearing a brown shirt—his character and agenda would be obvious to almost everyone. Mounting the podium with an emotional appeal to our national loyalty, the adamant display of venom and vitriol against the enemies of the State, the promise of the restoration of our American “empire” through a continuing buildup of military might, the stark name calling identifying an appropriate scapegoat to fault for our problems—all of these factors would, at best, betray a would-be antichrist figure as a false messiah—or at worst, spotlight an artless actor who undoubtedly took us for fools.

However, we can be certain the apocalypse of (that is, the revealing of) Antichrist in America, an event we believe will transpire in the years just ahead, will be a one-of-a-kind challenge requiring spiritual discernment worthy of only the most circumspect and attuned “code breakers” whose specialty is exposing wolves in sheep’s clothing.

Remember Hitler achieved a meteoric rise to prominence and power because he understood the soul of his people. He could relate. He knew what made them tick. He realized how to couch his message in the context of the political situation and how to engage those who would be but mere spectators, by relating to their financial pain and anxiety over the future. Hitler understood crowd psychology and how to manipulate it. To mesmerize his audience, he learned the power of emphatic facial expressions and energetic hand gestures. He compelled unquestioning allegiance by conveying solutions plainly and confidently no matter how oversimplified or extreme his answers might be. In fact, the more oversimplified and uncompromising his solutions were—the better to persuade the people of their usefulness.

What is the lesson for us? If the Antichrist were to arise in America at this moment, we would be foolish to expect him to be anything but a consummate American. He would look like us. He would talk like us. He would think—for the most part—like us. And with a straight face he might even assert a profession of Christian faith—and why he believes the teaching of Jesus Christ is so well suited for society. Following Adolf Hitler’s lead, he would appeal to the most devout class of Christian—the Evangelical. He would offer opportunities to bring biblically-based believers “out front”—to escape the shadows of social disdain and distance themselves from the hackneyed portrait affirmed by the intelligentsia and showcased by the media (supposing that those who call themselves Evangelical are intellectually bankrupt). He would convince Bible-believing conservatives that they should no longer see themselves as simple plebeians (the common folk). Their self-image should be elevated so they regard their value no less in status than the progressive patricians of sophisticated national institutions.^[i] Not that he would identify himself with the elite nor propose that the common man should be ashamed of his laborer status. Rather, he would argue he remains a man “of the people” yet holds himself sufficiently apart to sanctify his status as our formidable if not fearless leader.

This positioning reflects the example of Herr Hitler in many respects. Likewise, the tone and substance coming from the mouth of the Führer, although etched in the zeitgeist of that age, begs for comparison to what we hear today from select political leaders promoting the American version of The New World Order;^[ii] especially those who were, are, or would be our President. However, the sham to fool Evangelicals will make use of more than patronizing remarks. It will turn the words of our most popular preachers against us. The ideology that should prohibit the arising of Antichrist—the Christian religion and its worldview—will be a powerful tool co-opted to capture the “believing” masses and to encourage, through a moral veneer and political resolution, an agenda resonating within the heart of the “folks” in these United States. Indeed, the future philosophy of Antichrist will convince us we should resolve to be nothing less than what our most prominent spiritual leaders teach us to be—successful, healthy, and committed to classic American ideals (although our most noble notions of individual liberty, a la Henry David Thoreau and Thomas Jefferson, have long since quietly departed for destinations unknown).

In like manner, Antichrist would deftly implore citizens to follow his lead. He would criticize Christians for failure to follow the most “positive” aspects of our faith. He would call us to be the best Americans we can be. The health of our nation, he would argue, depends upon living productive lives that contribute to economic prosperity for all. Morality, like ethics, should be shaped to improve our communities in light of standards established by the majority. Religion, true religion, will instill these values. It will not conflict with political objectives because positive faith goes hand-in-hand with constructive political ideology. The manifesto of “the public good” will brand any substantial opposition worthy of elimination. True believers will be activists—but for causes that comply with the will of the many.

On the surface, the nature of these ideals will seem consistent with the Bible. After all, who would argue that the spiritually inclined should be unproductive, immoral, unethical, a burden on the public’s well-being, and incapable of contributing to the community’s economic health? And yet, upon a more cautious objective inspection, there will emerge a thin but distinctive line between a laudable social compact (built upon beneficial principles for both the individual and the nation) with a overreaching “State” that demands unquestioned obedience—commanding allegiance above all other causes no matter how worthy.

Moreover, the challenge to discern the agenda of the Antichrist will be difficult for many reasons, not just intellectual. Social pressure to conform will be “maxed out.” The path to achieve clarity will be a lonely path, for our peers will be only too ready to encourage complicity. Any complaint and disparagement will be interpreted as unpatriotic, a threat to social order, and harmful not only to our own health, but to those we love and care about. One’s consciousness raising must be done in stealth to not draw attention to an expressed awareness that the enemy of Christ speaks profanely in our presence. It will not be easy to resist even if we come to the realization we have been asked to serve Antichrist. Our peers will plead with us not to rock the boat, not to question falling in line, not to label the State as anything but what is best for one and all. To be “the best Christian one can be” will appear synonymous with being the perfect U.S. citizen.

As a harbinger of the evil one to come, study the words of Hitler below. Consider just how difficult our task to discern the voice of Antichrist when it reverberates in America:

“We demand liberty for all religious denominations in the State, so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the morality and moral sense of the German race. The Party, as such, stands for positiveChristianity, but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession.” ^[iii][Emphasis added]

“The National Government regards the two Christian Confessions as the weightiest factors for the maintenance of our nationality. They will respect the agreements concluded between them and the federal States. Their rights are not to be infringed... It will be the Government’s care to maintain honest co-operation between Church and State; the struggle against materialistic views and for a real national community is just as much in the interest of the German nation as in that of the welfare of our Christian faith. The Government of the Reich, who regard Christianity as the unshakable foundation of the morals and moral code of the nation, attach the greatest value to friendly relations with the Holy See and are endeavoring to develop them.” ^[iv]

A “Nod” from the Craft and the Altar of Zeus

When Obama’s new CIA director John Brennan was sworn in at the White House’s Roosevelt Room March 8, 2013, he chose to follow an example first made by Obama himself—rejecting the Bible to instead place his hand on a copy of the Constitution for the ceremony. This wasn’t just any version of the founding document either, mind you, but an older one before it included the Bill of Rights!^[v] It would be pleasant to think that such ceremonies and the use of the Bible especially during the U.S. presidential oath of office actually means something to those who place their hand on it and swear to “faithfully execute the office of president of the United States…so help me God.” But Obama, who had to repeat his swearing-in ceremony after the word “faithfully” was garbled by Chief Justice John Roberts during the first inauguration, did so the following day in the Map Room of the White House before a press pool and a small group of aides. This time, just like his CIA director John Brennan would later do, the oath was administered without the use of a Bible, insinuating to some that the Good Book was only public “eye-candy” in the first instance, and also that the oath of Barack Hussein Obama was biblically invalid. While this may seem trivial to the average person, what it means to secret orders is consequential. Groups such as Masons (who honored Obama with their first-ever inaugural ball in Washington DC, January 20, 2009) esteem rituals, gestures, the use of books such as the Bible, and oaths taken by heads of state to be of the highest mystical importance. This is why everything they do is administered through appropriate rituals, initiations, and incitations. Ethereal power—including supernatural agents—can be manipulated, bound, and released to execute blessings or curses as a result of proper oaths. Breaking an oath can likewise result in dire repercussion, in their opinion. Because this is not taken lightly by occultists, members of the Craft would have a difficult time believing the oath of office of the president of the U.S.—one of the most hallowed American traditions—was so easily flubbed at the start of his presidency. The very beginning of the oath, “I do solemnly swear,” is a spiritual petition. The word “solemn” means “an invocation of a religious sanction” or entreaty before deity to witness, sanction, and bless the binding nature of the ceremony to carry out the office or duty. The oath also binds the individual before “God” to faithfully execute the covenant. Thus, government representatives make an oath before taking public office, and witnesses in a court of law take an oath to “swear to tell the truth” before offering testimony. These principles are deeply rooted in the Judeo-Christian faith as well as most other religions. Though there is no way of knowing what the presidential oath of office deeply means to Obama, or whether the blunder and redo of the swearing-in ceremony was anything more than an accident, the unprecedented gaffe was suspicious to some as possibly representing important hidden meaning. Misgivings over it were additionally compounded when reflected against other curious activities and declarations by Barack Obama, which most of the media missed, downplayed, or simply refused to report on, that strongly connected his emergence with occult mythology identified in the Bible as both prophetic anddemonic.

An extraordinary example of this was when Obama gave his speech titled “The World that Stands as One” in Berlin, Germany, on July 24, 2008. More than a few students of occult history took notice of the symbolism and location of the event, even causing some who until then had rejected any “antichrist” labels hurled at Obama to reconsider their position. This included respected Catholic writer Michael O’Brien, best known for his apocalyptic novel, Father Elijah. O’Brien had received numerous letters and emails from subscribers and visitors to his website wondering if Obama was the Antichrist. At first, O’Brien wrote that this was not possible. Then a friend who had seen Obama’s speech in Berlin called him, talking about how mesmerizing the speech was, and stating that an announcer over German radio had said: “We have just heard the next president of the United States…and the future President of the World.” By now, Obama was conveying an unusual likeness to the Antichrist character of his novel. After watching the Berlin speech several times for himself, O’Brien sent out a newsletter in which he admitted that while he still doubted Obama was the prophesied ruler of the end times, he had come to believe he was “a carrier of a deadly moral virus, indeed a kind of anti-apostle spreading concepts and agendas that are not only anti-Christ but anti-human as well.” O’Brien finally conceded Obama could be instrumental in ushering in the dreaded Great Tribulation period, and worse, that he was “of the spirit of Antichrist.”^[vi] After Obama’s term of office was underway, O’Brien pointed out the numerous foreign and domestic problems Obama was facing, including wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the possibility of a new war with Iran, and issues related to the crumbling financial systems, saying these obstacles could overshadow Obama and lead to his defeat in the next presidential election. O’Brien then added in what was a clear reference to the coming of Antichrist, “Alternatively, he could become the ‘Great Facilitator,’ negotiator, peacemaker, working marvels throughout the world as he moves from one seemingly unsolvable problem to another.”^[vii] Because it is true that any significant public political event requires both forethought and symbolic meaning, the location where Obama gave his Berlin speech in front of Berlin’s Victory Column contributed to O’Brien’s conclusions. The site was offensive to educated Germans as well as to Christians and Jews because of its ties to Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. It was nevertheless oddly appropriate, for it was upon this exact location that Hitler had planned to enthrone himself in the Welthauptstadt Germania—the new “World Capital” upon winning World War II.

During the 1930s, Hitler commissioned Albert Speer, “the first architect of the Third Reich,” to design the new capital. As part of the plans, the “Siegessäule,” or Berlin Victory Column—a 226-foot monument topped by a golden-winged figure representing Borussia, the female personification of Prussia, and Victoria, the cult goddess of military victory—was removed from its location in front of the Reichstag building in 1939 and relocated to its current location in the Tiergarten, a 495-acre park in the middle of Berlin where Obama gave his speech in front of the Nazi symbol.

Rainer Brüderle, deputy leader of the liberal political party Free Democrats in Germany, complained to the newspaper Bild am Sonntag: “The Siegessäule in Berlin was moved to where it is now by Adolf Hitler. He saw it as a symbol of German superiority and of the victorious wars against Denmark, Austria and France.” This represented a serious question In Brüderle’s mind as to “whether Barack Obama was advised correctly in his choice of the Siegessäule as the site to hold a speech on his vision for a more cooperative world.”^[viii] Another German politician named Andreas Schockenhoff was equally disturbed, saying, “It is a problematic symbol.”^[ix]

Evidently it was not problematic for Obama, who stood in front of it and saluted the German audience in a way eerily similar to what Adolf Hitler used to do, followed by thousands returning the salute, which is against German law. When Obama ended his speech in front of the war goddess, he said, “With an eye toward the future, with resolve in our hearts, let us remember this history, and answer our destiny, and remake the world once again.” This is exactly what Hitler had promised to do and exactly where he had planned to memorialize it.

Of greater significance and not far from where Obama delivered his rousing speech is the Great Altar of Zeus in the Pergamon Museum. According to several reports, Obama visited the Great Altar while in Berlin, which is especially important, given what he did on returning to the United States. Before we examine Obama’s revealing actions, consider carefully what the Bible says about the Altar of Zeus in the letter to the church in Pergamos (Pergamum, Pergamon):

And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges; I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan’s seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and has not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth. (Revelation 2:12–13).

In the Greek, the phrase, “where Satan’s seat is,” literally means, “where a throne to Satan is.” Scholars identify this throne or “seat” as the Great Altar of Zeus that existed in Pergamos at that time. So important was the worship of Zeus in ancient Pergamos that perpetual sacrifices were offered to him upon the towering and famous forty-foot-high altar. Antipas, the first leader and martyr of the early Christian church, is believed to have been slain on this altar, slowly roasting to death inside the statue of a bull, the symbol and companion of Zeus. The phrase in Revelation 2:13, “wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth,” is considered a citation of this event.

Approximately two thousand years after Revelation 2:13 was written, German archeologists removed the massive altar of Zeus from the ruins of Pergamos and took it to Berlin, where it was restored as the centerpiece of the Pergamon Museum. It is here that Hitler first adored it, later building an outdoor replica of it from which he gave a series of speeches that mesmerized many Germans.

“Fast forward about another seventy-five years,” says blogger El Gallo. “Another charismatic young politician mesmerizes huge German crowds with a rousing speech in Berlin. Barack Hussein Obama…[and] did Barack Obama visit…the Great Altar of Zeus…? Presumably he did.”^[x]

Whether Obama received inspiration from the throne of Satan while in Berlin or not, what he did next was astonishing. Upon returning to the United States, he immediately commissioned the construction of a Greek-columned stage from which he made his acceptance speech for his party’s nomination. Because Greek temples such as those built to honor Zeus were thought to house the patron deity, the GOP ridiculed Obama, mocking him as playing Zeus of “Mount Olympus” and accusing his supporters of “kneeling” before the “Temple of Obama.” The New York Post ran an enlightening “Convention Special” supplement on August 28, 2008, with the telling headline: “‘O’ My God: Dems Erect Obama Temple” blazoned across the front cover. But it was not until blogger Joel Richardson pointed out how the design of Obama’s stage was a dead ringer for the Great Altar of Zeus^[xi] that Obama’s campaign managers tried to explain away the design as being a conglomeration representing the portico of the White House with the U.S. capitol building. “But experts agreed with Richardson,” Gallo wrote. “It was a replica of the Great Altar of Pergamum.”^[xii]

Thus incredibly, like Hitler, Obama honored the goddess Victoria with his presence before ordering a replica of the biblical throne of Satan, upon which he accepted his date with destiny.

Following this, Barack Hussein Obama on June 4, 2009 gave an unprecedented speech to the Muslim world from Cairo, Egypt, declaring that he was launching a new era between the United States and the Muslim world. For the first time, Obama was forthright about his Muslim heritage and stated that the United States—which he is on record as saying is “no longer a Christian nation”—is now “one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.” Newsweek editor Evan Thomas followed the president’s speech with a declaration, reflected in the opinion of many, that “Obama is standing above the country, above the world, he is a sort of God.”^[xiii]

Now imagine—if such sentiments as illustrated above were afforded to a man like Obama—what would America and people around the world be willing to accept if a truly amazing, even 'other-worldly' man stepped forward in 2016 with seemingly all of the answers to mankind's woes?

Raidersnewsupdate.com