The Ten Will remain in Europe at All Costs

The cost of Europe’s unity


July 31, 2011|By Ilana Bet-El


The debt crisis in the euro zone, and the Greek calamity within it, is basically a political crisis with economic consequences – not the other way around. For the European Union is above all a political project, initially for peace (immediately post World War II), then for security (during the Cold War), and finally for prosperity (post-Cold War). All its core decisions have been made for political reasons, notably every single move for enlargement since the original six countries founded what became the EU in 1957.

This is especially true for Greece, which became a member in 1981, just seven years after the fall of the military dictatorship that had ruled it since 1967 and after decades of turmoil. This was a state with little modern experience of political stability or economic management. However, it was the height of the Cold War, and it was clear that Greece, a NATO member since 1952, had to be kept warm within the Western fold. To this end, political and economic reform were rushed through, and membership was bestowed, most probably before Greece was ready.

This reality was accepted by leaders across Europe as a political imperative. Over the years, EU funds were used in the massive network of cronyism in Greece, and its governments produced financial accounts that were short of accurate, especially before it entered the euro. Still, keeping Greece in the EU was a politically necessary step; it is a geopolitically crucial state, bordering Turkey, the Balkans, and the Middle East, and has historic and cultural ties with Russia based on a shared Orthodox religion. You must keep such a state in your camp, however difficult.

Much the same is true of Italy. Roberto Saviano’s “Gomorrah’’ details regions of lawlessness and horror in this founding member of the EU, some inadvertently funded by the union. Still, the crumbling nature of the Italian state and economy has long been known across Europe and accepted. To do otherwise is to risk a massive crisis that could break the union.


Comment by Adamantine:

None of the ten members of the core of Europe will be lost.Uprooted someday but uprooted so that they may remain in the beast kingdom.

I am suspicious that the core of Europe is still best seen in the corpse of the Western European Union.

The western European Union gave up the ghost and died on June 30, 2011 but not before passing along its essential powers to the European Union at large during the previous decade.


4 thoughts on “The Ten Will remain in Europe at All Costs

  1. You are convinced that the EU is the beast of Daniel and of Rev. I to was once convinced of this. I do believe that the prince who makes the covenant in Daniel 9:27 is Jovier Solana, however, the beast and the prince, contrary to popular belief, are not the same person.
    Solana signed the covenant on Jan 1 2007 just as Herb said in his book. This covenant is in perfect sink with Daniel 9. Many have been discouraged because they believe that the abomination should have been set up in 2010 in the middle of the 7. This is not necessarily true. Nor is it true that the 7 years has to be 7 years. The covenant is 7 years but the lord might not come for 10 years. Scripture would still be right. Just some interpretations would be wrong. Wouldn’t that be a first?
    The KJV of the bible does not say middle of the week in Daniel 9, it says midst. As long as the sacrifice is stopped sometime during the 7 years, it will fulfill this verse. Midst means sometime during, not middle. I believe I can prove this if you are willing to rethink a few traditional teachings on prophecy. It is like pre-trib rapture. It is out of context.
    Daniel 8:11-14 is speaking about the little horn of the last days. It has not been fulfilled any more than the Maccabees fulfilled the abomination of desolation. Some Christians believe that even though Jesus said 140 years later to watch for it.
    The little horn is responsible for taking away the daily sacrifice (the prince just causes it to be taken away. Causing and doing are quite different.) From the time the covenant is made til the abomination is set up there are 2300 days. Read it over.
    2300 days after Jan 1st 2007 is about April 19 2013.
    The way things are shaping up that sounds like a possibility.
    Now is the EU the beast. I don’t think so. I think the beast is Islam. All of the land that was occupied by the first and second beast in Daniel 7 is now occupied by Islam. It is not Europe.
    Muslim nations are toppling their dictatorial regimes one after another. The Muslim brotherhood is gaining popularity in each of these countries as the dictators fall. Around the middle East there are over 20 Muslim countries, but in the area that Alexander took there are far less.
    What is Jihad? You can’t buy or sell unless you take the name of Islam or the mark of the crescent moon or the declare Allah is Lord. (the correct translation for the word that was translated 666 is Allah is Lord according to Walid Shoebat. He doesn’t understand Babylon right but he does read Arabic and that word was written in Arabic. Jihad will also kill you if you don’t become Muslim.
    The beast hates Babylon. The Muslims hate the Catholics. The Catholics rule with Islam for 42 months, then radicals take over the beast and destroy Babylon in one hour.
    This makes a lot more sense of scripture than the EU being the beast.


  2. Comment by Adamantine:
    I agree with you that the Islamic theory makes sense in many ways.
    It has some very reasonable components and I appreciate your review of the theory.
    However the current theory with Europe and JS while vastly weakened is not dead and it already has a combining power base way ahead of the troubled pathetic nations of the middle east.
    As long as JS is viable and as long as we are in the seven year treaty ENPI it maintains preeminence for me. Should it fail entirely as a theory I will cease to comment. I am not a professional in this issue and am just doing my small part to keep an eye out while it seems reasonable and needed. Islam is a terrorist religion and has been recognized as such by thinking people worldwide for hundreds of years. History cannot be rewritten to favor those who simply desire all of the religions of the world to get along.Islam has a part to play in end time events and it will not be for good regardless.


  3. Agreed with the above – I don’t know all of who is who, but its seems very reasonable to suspect that Islam could give rise to the King of the South mentioned in Daniel 11. It fits together quite neatly – with the leader of the reborn roman empire possessing the wealth of Egypt, Libya, and Cush (Sudan, pardon me if get this last name wrong I don’t have the text in front of me at the moment) – vis a vis the EU stepping in to establish stability on the southern shores of the mediterranean. I would think that this would incite a great deal of angst in the Islamic world and could inspire many of the divided powers to set aside their differences to counteract this new European imperialism.

    It’s just something I’m watching – again I could be wrong and I don’t want to be so attached to any particular theory or interpretive framework that I fail to see the season that is upon us.


  4. Re: “with the leader of the reborn roman empire possessing the wealth of Egypt, Libya, and Cush”
    Are you saying that the EU might take control of Egypt. I have not heard of such a thing. Here is my understanding of Daniel 11. Mark that I said it is my understanding. That does not make it truth. History seams to indicate that the king of the north is Syria. The king of the south is said to be Egypt. Up to Daniel 11:20 has been fulfilled in the past by these two nations from what I can gather. However, I have not been able to find a reason for Syria to attempt to attack Egypt in the near future. If what you say takes place and Egypt is put under some kind of rule by the UN or EU, then it might make sense that Syria try to take Egypt back for Islam. This is all speculation and has no evidence to back it up.
    The little horn of Daniel 7 and 8 are not the same as the king of the north in Daniel 11. These have been called the same by many but they are not. History proves the king of the north to be Syria while there is absolutely no reason to think the little horn is Syria. Puzzling, this one is. Or should I say confusing?
    How do you guys feel about the 2300 days of Daniel 8 following the signing of the covenant by Solana?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s