Thursday this week marks the 23rd anniversary of NATO`s bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which began on March 24, 1999, and lasted 78 days, Serbian media reported.
The European security crisis began in 1999 when US/Nato started to bomb Yugoslavia, and that was then erosion of all foundations of the world order, according to Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov in an interview with Russian Tass.
«Back then, these bombs in addition to killing civilians started destroying the system of international relations. It was exactly then that NATO (and when we say «NATO», we mean «Americans») started to bomb the foundation of the world order, which led to the European security crisis, which we are living through today», the spokesman underscored.
This is exactly in line with what I have said in my recent articles. Putin`s war in Ukraine has many sides. Putin is attacking the European globalists, and globalization is dead.
Peskov pointed out that this crisis primarily involves the European continent. Russia and other states are located, most of which are currently unfriendly towards Moscow. «The very Americans, who instigated all this, they suffer from this crisis much less, we must understand it well», he added.
Serbia was attacked as responsible for the humanitarian catastrophe in Kosovo, and the immediate cause was the events in Racak and the failure of negotiations on Kosovo`s future status in Rambouillet and Paris, according to Novinite.
NATO’s air operation began at 7.45 p.m. on 24 March 1999. Nineteen NATO countries began bombing ships in the Adriatic and four air bases in Italy. First, the air defenses and other Yugoslav military sites in Pristina, Batajnica, Belgrade, Mladenovac, and elsewhere were bombed.
According to the Serbian Ministry of Defense, 2,500 civilians were killed during the NATO airstrike, including 89 children and 1,031 members of the army and police. 6,000 civilians were injured, including 2,700 children and 5,173 soldiers and police, and 25 are still missing.
Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic said last night that there was no justification for NATO aggression in 1999 but that if he had been in Slobodan Milosevic’s place, he would have acted differently, Politika reported.
“In a few days, I would have stopped it, either by resigning or something else. 78 days is too long to cripple a country that had no chance to defend itself and wait for someone else to help us, but we knew that no one would,” Vucic said in an interview with RTV.
The president noted that Russia at the time, led by Boris Yeltsin, was weak. Vucic also pointed out that the one who leads the country must take care of how to save his people.
“I am now looking at the conflict in Eastern Europe and wondering why some people are not thinking well about the consequences”, Vucic said.
Serbian President Aleksander Ucic said in an interview on March 24; «“Now, after 23 years, one can see with clarity how despicable, ill-judged, unlawful and immoral this operation by 19 NATO countries was” and how “ridiculous, even stupid, to hear them now blaming Russia for its so-called aggression against Ukraine”, adding that “the morals, principles, and values they constantly talk about do not exist at all”. Does China have any comments?
Wang Wenbin is a Chinese politician diplomat, the spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, deputy director of the Foreign Ministry Information Department, and a member of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). He had a speech and said this on CCTV:
«On March 24, 1999, US-led NATO forces blatantly bypassed the UN Security Council and began the 78-day incessant bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, a sovereign country, in grave violation of relevant international conventions and basic norms governing international relations.
In 12,000 strikes, over 10,000 tonnes of explosives were dropped and more than 3,000 missiles fired, targeting everything from medical facilities to ancient cultural relics, residential buildings, and schools.
Thousands of innocent civilians including three Chinese journalists were killed. During the bombing campaign, NATO even used depleted uranium bombs prohibited by international conventions, causing long-term damage to Serbia’s environment and people’s health.
The people of Serbia will not forget NATO’s aggression, nor will the people of China and the rest of the world.
NATO is convening a summit on Ukraine on the 23rd anniversary of its bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. I wonder if the US and other NATO members have asked themselves:
What is the root cause of the Ukraine crisis?
What responsibility should the US and NATO assume?
Before reflecting on their crimes against the people in countries like Serbia, Iraq , and Afghanistan, the US and NATO have neither right nor authority to judge others.
Born out of the Cold War, NATO serves no other purpose than war. It has never contributed to the peace and security of our world and will never do so. All those who truly love peace and are committed to advancing peace will resolutely reject NATO’s continued expansion».
The conflict between Russia and Ukraine is a complex crisis, but the answer lies in history. Who knows that Kiyv once was more powerful than Moscow? It was also a time when Ukraine and America were adversaries.
Neanderthal settlement in Ukraine is also seen in the Moldova archaeological sites (43,000 – 45,000 BC) which includes a dwelling constructed from mammoth bones. The territory is also considered to be the likely location for the human domestication of the horse.
So, there is no doubt that Ukraine is something special. But what is it? Alexandr Solzhenitsyn criticized the Allies for not opening a new front against Nazi Germany in the west earlier in World War II. This resulted in Soviet domination and control of the nations of Eastern Europe.
Solzhenitsyn claimed the Western democracies apparently cared little about how many died in the East, as long as they could end the war quickly and painlessly for themselves in the West. In 1978, he called the United States «Dechristianized» and mired boorish consumerism. Wow, that`s a long time ago, and we have the same going on even today.
He also accused the Western news media of left-wing bias (Wow! Really?), of violating the privacy of celebrities, and of filling up the «immortal souls» of their readers with celebrity gossip and other «vain talk».
He also said that the West erred in thinking that the whole world should embrace this as a model. While faulting Soviet society for rejecting basic human rights and the rule of law, he also critiqued the West for being too legalistic.
«A society which is based on the letter of the law and never reaches any higher is taking very scarce advantage of the high level of human possibilities.»
Solzhenitsyn also argued that the West erred in «denying (Russian culture`s) autonomous character and therefore never understood it».
Solzhenitsyn was also critical of NATO`s eastward expansion towards Russia`s borders. In 2006, Solzhenitsyn accused NATO of trying to bring Russia under its control; he claimed this was visible because of its «ideological support for the «color revolutions» and the paradoxical forcing of North Atlantic interests on Central Asia».
(Worldwide media use the term color revolution to describe various protest movements and accompanying attempted or successful change of governments that took place in several countries such as former Soviet Union. Russia, China, and Vietnam share the view that color revolutions are the «product of machinations by the U.S and other Western powers» and pose a vital threat to their public and national security).
In a 2006 interview with Der Spiegel, he stated «This was especially painful in the case of Ukraine, a country whose closeness to Russia is defined by literally millions of family ties among our peoples, relatives living on different sides of the national border. At one fell stroke, these families could be torn apart by a new dividing line, the border of a military bloc.»
He gave a speech in Washington D.C, on 30 June 1975 in which he mentioned how the system created by the Bolsheviks in 1917 caused dozens of problems in the Soviet Union. He described how this system was responsible for the Holodomor.
It was a system that, in time of peace, artificially created a famine, causing 6 million people to die in Ukraine in 1932 and 1933. He added: «they died on the very edge of Europe. And Europe didn`t even notice it. The world didn`t even notice it! 6 million people»
In 2008, he said that, while the famine in Ukraine was both artificial and caused by the state, it was no different than the Russian famine of 1921. he expressed the belief that both famines were caused by the systematic armed robbery of the harvests from both Russian and Ukrainian peasants by Bolshevik units, which were under orders from the Politburo to bring back food for the starving urban population centers while refusing for ideological reasons to permit any private sale of food supplies in the cities or to give any payment to the peasants in return for the food that was seized.
Solzhenitsyn further alleged that the theory that the Holodomor was a genocide that only victimized the Ukrainian people was created decades later by believers in an anti-Russian form of extreme Ukrainian nationalism.
He also cautioned that the ultranationalist’s claims risked being accepted without question in the West due to widespread ignorance and misunderstanding thereof both Russian and Ukrainian history.
The Holodomor means; «to kill by starvation».
It is also known as the Terror-famine, or the Great Famine, which was a famine in Soviet Ukraine from 1932 to 1933 that killed millions of Ukrainians. The term Holodomor emphasizes the famine`s man-made and allegedly intentional aspects such as rejection of outside aid, confiscation of all household foodstuffs, and restriction of population movement.
As part of the wider Soviet famine which affected the major grain-producing areas of the country, millions of inhabitants of Ukraine, the majority of whom were ethnic Ukrainians, died of starvation in a peacetime catastrophe unprecedented in the history of Ukraine.
Since 2006, the Holodomor has been recognized by Ukraine and 15 other countries as a genocide of the Ukrainian people carried out by the Soviet government.
Whether the Holodomor was genocide is still the subject of academic debate, as are the causes of the famine and intentionality of the deaths. Some scholars believe that the famine was planned by Joseph Stalin to eliminate a Ukrainian independence movement. Others suggest that the man-made famine was a consequence of Soviet industrialization.
According to Elazar Barkan, Elizabeth A. Cole, and Kai Stuve, there is a competition among victims in constructing a «Ukrainian Holocaust», stating that since the 1990`s Holodomor has been adopted by anti-communists due to its similarity to the Holocaust in an attempt to promote the narrative that the Soviet Communists killed 10 million Ukrainians, while the Nazis only killed 6 million Jews.
They stated that Holodomor was «introduced and popularized by the Ukrainian diaspora in North America before Ukraine became independent» and that «the term «Holocaust» is not explained at all.»
According to them, this has been used to create a «victimized national narrative» and «compete with the Jewish narrative in order to obscure the «dark sides» of Ukraine`s national history and to counter accusations that their fathers collaborated with the Germans.
Holodomor translated from Ukrainian means «death by hunger», «killing by hunger», «killing by starvation», or sometimes «murder by hunger or starvation.»
It is a compound of the Ukrainian holod, «hunger», and mor, «plague». The expression moryty holodom means «to inflict death by hunger.»
The Ukrainian verb moryty means «to poison, to drive to exhaustion, or to torment.» The perfective form of moryty is zamoity, «kill or drive to death by hunger, exhausting work.»
In English, the Holodomor has also been referred to as the artificial famine, famine-genocide, terror famine, and terror-genocide.
Holodomor is now an entry in the modern, two-volume dictionary of the Ukrainian language, published in 2004, described as «artificial by hunger, organized on a vast scale by a criminal regime against a country`s population.
On 24 February, EU leaders met at a special summit convened following Russia`s aggression against Ukraine. They agreed on further sanctions against Russia that target; the financial sector, the energy, and transport sectors, dual-use goods, export control and export financing, visa policy, and additional sanctions against Russian individuals.
Like Trudeau in Canada, the EU will freeze Russian assets and probably cut off SWIFT for now.
There is no doubt that ordinary innocent people will be attacked and suffer, and in the long run, we`re talking about starvation. Or «killing by starvation.» Is this Holodomor 2,0?
Stacy Abrams is nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize as Georgia investigates her group for voter registration fraud. Who cares? Not Lars Haltbrekken, who is the man that nominated Abrams. Lars Halbrekken is a member of Norway`s Socialist party and nominated Stacy Abrams for her work on voter registration and rights.
A lot of people went nuts when they heard about this earlier this week. But this is not the first time people went nuts regarding the Nobel Peace Prize. The last time people went nuts was when Barrack Obama won the prize. But why? Nobody didn`t understand that. Nor Barrack Obama.
This is very embarrassing for the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, but also for Norway. Giving Obama the prize was a shame and people called the Committee clowns. They lost a lot of credibility and they did not have their annual Peace Prize Concerts since then. They say lack of money is the reason, but we all know why they have a low profile.
Nominating Stacy Abrams is also a shame because we don`t know what happened about the election in Georgia yet. But we can assume that Lars Haltbrekken is satisfied because he is obviously not a Trump supporter.
He is a Norwegian environmentalist and was elected to the Parliament of Norway in 2017 for the Socialist Left Party. In the ’90s Lars tried to prevent natural gas power plants in Norway. A man who grew up in Trondheim.
Ingrid Galadriel Aune Falck is another one from Trondheim. She is a Viking. Well, she was. Right after Qanon (dressed as a Viking from Scandinavia) and his friends stormed Capitol Hill on January 6th, she resigned as a leader of a Viking re-enactment group.
Historically, the Vikings do have a shady reputation, and events in modern times have not made that easier to get past. You know, the Nazis and all that, Ingrid wrote on her blog.
For years, MSM in Norway has talked a lot about the Vikings, and for some people, it is very important to be part of something strong and powerful. A system that can make fear. But Ingrid didn`t want to be part of an organization that has become a Nazi party.
Qanon-shaman (Jake Angeli) with his «horned costume» stormed the US congress, but he also had Viking-tattoos on his body. One of them was the logo of Ingrid`s former re-enactment company, Hands-on History.
Let’s be clear; most Viking re-enactors are kind and respectful, regardless of their level of geekiness. However, every basket has some rotten eggs. And some of these rotten eggs don`t even try to disguise their white supremacist smell, Ingrid wrote on her blog.
The same can be said about the US. Qanon doesn`t represent the Christian community on the right side. He is one of the few extremists.
At the end of Ingrid`s blog, she wrote; I`m letting go of a beast I can`t control. And from now on I`m choosing to laugh instead of getting angry. Sorry guys, I`m out!
Last year, the police in Norway said the biggest threat wasn`t Al-Qaida, but the Nazi`s. A country that is struggling with domestic terrorists.
Philip Manshaus is the last known terrorist who was radicalized in Trondheim. A 21-year-old man who was active on the internet on various forums for anti-immigrant groups. He was armed with multiple weapons and opened fire in a mosque in Norway.
One person was injured before the attacker was overpowered by a 75-year old worshiper. Hours after the attack, the dead body of his stepsister was found in his own house. He murdered his own step-sister (17) who was adopted from China.
Philip Manshaus said in the court that there is a Genocide going on in Norway.
Manshaus was inspired by New Zealand-terrorist Brenton Harrison Tarrant, a 28-year-old man from Australia. He attacked Christchurch in New Zealand on 15 March 2019. He began his attack at the Al Noor Mosque in the suburb of Riccarton and continued at Linwood Islamic Centre. He killed 51 people and injured 40.
Tarrant is a self-avowed white supremacist, and Australia, where the gunman was from, has also seen an increase in xenophobia, racism, and Islamophobia. Tarrant also said that he like Communist China (editor; we all know what they do to Christians and Muslims).
Tarrant was inspired by Fjotolf Hansen (born Anders Behring Breivik), a terrorist who committed the 2011 Norway attacks. On 22 July 2011, he killed eight people by detonating a van bomb amid Regjeringskvartalet in Oslo, then killed 69 participants of a Workers’ Youth League (AUF) summer camp in a mass shooting on the island of Utoya.
Since his imprisonment, Fjotolf Hansen has identified himself as a fascist and a Nazi, who practices Odinism and used counter jihadist rhetoric to support ethnonationalism.
He admitted to the crimes and said the purpose of the attack was to save Norway and Western Europe from a Muslim takeover, and that the Labour Party had to «pay the price» for letting down Norway and the Norwegian people.
After his arrest, he referred to himself as «the greatest monster since Quisling (a Nazi who overtook Norway during World War II).
Fjotolf also alluded to himself as the future regent of Norway, master of life and death, while calling himself «inordinately loving» and «Europe`s most perfect knight since WWII. He was convinced that he was a warrior in a «low-intensity civil war» and had been chosen to save his people.
He described plans to carry out further «executions of categories A, B, and C traitors» by the thousands, the psychiatrists included, and to organize Norwegians in reservations for the purpose of selective breeding.
Genocide in Norway has happened before, and it is possible that it can happen again because history tends to repeat itself. We know the history of Norway`s five national minorities. We know the way of life of jews, Kven, Gypsies, and Romani people (tater).
The minorities have always been treated very badly. Jews were sent to Holocaust and killed during WW II. While Danish Jews were granted ordinary civil rights in 1814, the Constitutional Assembly in Eidsvoll, Norway, that same year went in the opposite direction. Jews were banned in Norway.
The 1800s saw emerging nationalism and a vision of one nation and one people in Norway, and there was little room for being different.
The abuse of power continued in Norway, Now in the form of assimilation.
The Child Protection Act of 1896 allowed the authorities to take children away from all travelers (tater), while the Vagrancy Act of 1900 made the itinerant lifestyle a crime.
Later on, modern genetics came to have a significant influence in Norway and on Norwegian government policy from the 1920s onwards. This hit the Romani people (tater) hard. Alongside groups such as alcoholics, criminals, and so-called “tater” were seen as carrying undesirable genes.
The Sterilisation Act of 1934 allowed for forced sterilization of people with serious mental conditions, people who were mentally deficient, or people whose mental development was severely impaired.
It has been documented that up until 1977 at least 125 Norwegians of traveling ancestry were sterilized, while Romani people (tater) were sterilized without basis in law. Many of them were left with physical and mental scars, and several later committed suicide.
Lobotomy was also carried out on Romani people (tater), resulting in death for some of them.
The Portuguese neurologist Egas Moniz won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1949 for his now-discredited procedure of the lobotomy, which involves serving nerve connections within the brain of a mentally ill person.
Today the lobotomy is considered a barbaric treatment for mental illness, and that`s why relatives of lobotomy patients now have started a campaign to have the prize rescinded.
Mr. DeForest Kelley (as Dr. Leonard «Bones» McCoy) once said; My God, man, drilling holes in his head`s not the answer. The artery must be repaired. Now put away your butcher knives and let me save this patient before it`s too late.
What will tomorrow`s historians say about today`s cancer treatments, such as chemotherapy and immunotherapy? It remains to see. People are still suffering and have pain even today. Fortunately not by lobotomy.
In 1897, the government delegated the work to assimilate the Romani people (tater) to a private organization, commonly known as the Norwegian Mission for the Homeless. The mission ran children`s homes, schools, and labor colonies for Romani people with the express aim of eradicating the Romani people/ tater culture.
One important strategy was to remove children from their parents and then raise them as «good Christians» and settled Norwegians in children’s homes. In total at least 1,500 children were separated from their parents, often growing up without knowing about their traveler (tater) background.
Many of these children suffered violence and abuse. More than one hundred families of Romani people/tater descent were sent to Svanviken labor colony in Nordmore to be «weaned off» their traditional way of life and become «good Christians».
The Norwegian Mission for the Homeless continued its activities in Svanviken until 1989, but the Norwegian government is still kidnapping children even today. They take 5 kids from their parents every single day.
The Norwegian government is breaking civil human rights and many of these cases end up in the European Court of Human Rights in Haag. Many of the cases I have heard of is shocking.
The human rights are pretty clear: You have a right to life. Art 3; freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment. Art 4; freedom from slavery and forced labor. Art 5; right to liberty and security. Art 6; right to a fair trial, and Art 7; No punishment without law.
Will Ferrell Hates Norway in a new Super Bowl commercial. Not for any crimes, Nazism, Vikings, or White supremacists, but because they have too much electic vehicles.
Author Hannah Arendt wrote the book «The Origins of Totalitarianism» in which she discussed how it was possible for a democratic state such as Germany to turn into a cold-blooded totalitarian state.
Arendt makes the point that a totalitarian system may become even worse than dictatorships, as the latter implements fear of death when speaking up against the authorities, but totalitarian states do the same, but in a more subtle way.
The aim of totalitarian systems is to control every aspect of a person`s life, his views on the family, genders, his feelings towards the church, religion, and every aspect of life are to be controlled.
In such states, the population is held in fear of repercussions from the police and state authorities, in constant fear of losing their jobs, their reputation, and friends. Fear becomes the tool to keep the population in check. Nobody dares to say much, out of trepidation for what may happen then.
One of Arendt`s main points was that precisely because modern democracies incorporates well-developed institutions and the hierarchical structure, people tend to obey orders without daring to think freely.
They view themselves as part of a system with little or no personal responsibility.
Arendt found that it was not the desire to be brutal to certain ethnic groups such as Jews and Gypsies, that was the root for the «obedience towards the state» that permeated the German society.
It was the indifference, lack of empathy and willingness to obey status quo that permeated the German population.
Since groupthink was vital in this society, no one dared to step out of the group. Those who did quickly ended up in the same concentration camps where intellectuals dissidents joined the Jews and others who were unwanted.
The point is that societies that cultivate just laws prosper.
MEP`s (Members og the European Parlieament) voted overwhelmingly to approve the withdrawal agreement today. MEP`s ratified the Brexit Withdrawel Agreement by 621 votes to 49 following an emotional debate in Brussels today.
The UK will leave the EU on Friday night this week, and Nigel Farage is the happiest man in the world right now.
Nigel Farage had a speech in the parliament today and said the EU is anti-democratic, while most British MEP`s who spoke expressed deep sadness about Brexit. Many of them predicted that the UK will return to EU some times in the future.
The Brexit party leader said this earlier today: «I`m hoping this begins the end of this project. It`s a bad project, it isn`t just undemocratic it`s anti-democratic…..
There is a historic battle going on now across the West. In Europe, America and elswhere. It is globalism against populism. And you may loathe populism, but I`ll tell you a funny thing – it`s becoming very popular.
And it has great benefits. No more financial contributions, no more European Court of Justice, no more common fisheries policy, no more being talked down to, no more being bullied, no more Guy Verhofstadt.»
Guy Verhofstadt is a Belgian politician who was the leader of the Allicance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe from 2009 to 2019. He has been a MEP from Belgium since 2009. He was also a Prime Minister of Beligium from 1999 to 2008.
He led the Allicance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Group (ALDE) from 2009 to 2019, and founded the inter-parliamentarian federalist Spinelli Group. He has been the European Parliament`s Brexit Coordinator and Chair of the Brexit Steering Group since 2016.
Verhofstadt is an advocate for federalisation of the European Union, and earlier today he said this; «What is in fact threatening Britain`s sovereignty most – the rules of our single market or the fact that tomorrow they may be planting Chinese 5G masts in the British islands?…..
It is sad to see a country leaving that twice liberated us, has twice given its blood to liberate Europe…
In the last couple of days I have received hundreds of mails from British citizens saying they desperately want to stay or return….. So this vote is not an adieu, this vote, in my opinion, is only an au revoir.»
Verhofstadt and Farage know the history of the United Kingdom. What`s happening today is similar to the era of Henry VIII who broke England`s ties with the Roman Catholic Church, becoming the sole head of the English Church. It was time for the English Reformation.
The English Reformation was a series of events in 16th – century England by which the Church of England broke away from the authority of the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church.
These events were, in part, associated with the wider European Protestant Reformation, a religious and political movement that affected the practice of Christianity across western and central Europe.
Caused included the invention of the printing press and increased circulation of the Bible, and the transmission of new knowledge and ideas among scholars, the upper and middle classes and readers in general.
However, the various phases of the English Reformation, which also covered Wales and Ireland, were largely driven by changes in government policy, to which public opinion gradually accommodated itself.
The English Reformation was at the outset more of a political affair than a theological dispute. The reality of political differences between Rome and England allowed growing theological disputes to come to the force.
Until the break with Rome, it was the Pope and general councils of the church that declared doctrine. Church law was governed by canon law with final jurisdiction in Rome. Church taxes were paid straight to Rome, and the Pope had the final word in the appointment of bishops.
The break with Rome was effected by a series of acts of Parliament passed between 1532 and 1534, among the 1534 Act of Supremacy, which declared that Henry was the «Supreme Head on earth of the Church of England».
But this title was renounced by Mary I in 1553. Under Mary, the whole process was reversed and the Church of England was again placed under papal jurisdiction. Soon after, Elizabeth reintroduced the Protestant faith but in a more moderate manner.
The structure and theology of the church was a matter of fierce dispute for generations.
The violent aspect of these disputes, manifested in the English Civil Wars, ended when the last Roman Catholic monarch, James II was desposed, and Parliament asked William III and Mary II to rule jointly in conjunction with the English Bill of Rights in 1688 (in the «Glorious Revolution»), from which emerged a church polity with an establshed church and a number of non-conformist churches whose members at first suffered various civil disabilities that were removed ove time.
The legacy of the previous Roman Catholic heritage and establishment as the state church remained an issue for some time and still exists today. A Substantial but dwindling minority from the late 16th to early 19th centuries remained Roman Catholic in England. Their chuch organisation remained illegal until the Relief Act of 1829.
The Reformation was a clash of two opposed schemes of salvation. The Catholic Church taught that the contrite person could cooperate with God towards their salvation by performing good works. Medieval Catholic worship was centered on the Mass, the church’s offering of the sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood.
The Mass was also an offering of prayer by which the living could help souls in purgatory. Protestants taught that fallen humanity was helpless and under condemnation until gien the grace of God trhough faith.
They believed the Chatholic emphasis on purgatory was an obstacle to true faith in God and the identification of the Mass with Christ’s sacrifice a blasphemous perversion of the Eucharist. In place of the Mass, Protestant worship was centered on the Bible, to them the only road to faith in Christ, either read or presented in sermons.
More calls for reform came from Renaissance humanists, such as Erasmus. Humanists downplayed the role of rites and ceremonies in achieving salvation and criticised the superstitious veneration of relics.
Erasmus and John Colet emphasised a simple, personal piety and a return ad fones («back to the sources») of Christian faith. Colet’s commentaries on the Pauline epistles emphasized double predestination and the worthlessness of human works.
Anne Boleyn’s own religious views were shaped by French humanists such as Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples, whose 1512 commentaries on Paul’s epistles stated that human works were irrelevant to salvation five years before Luther publiched the same views.
Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples was a French theologian and humanist. He was a precursor of the Protestant movement in France, and a friend of Erasmus. He anticipated some ideas that were important to the Protestant Reformation.
Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples remained a Roman Catholic throughout his life, and sought to reform the Church without seperating from it. Several of his books were condemned as heretical, and he spent some time in exile. He was, however, a favorite of the king of France, Francis I, and enjoyed his protection.
By the early 1520’s, the views of German reformer Martin Luther were known and disputed in England. The main plank of Luther’s theology was justification by faith alone rather than by good works. In this view, only faith, itself a gift from God, can secure the grace of God.
Justfication by faith alone threatened the whole basis of the Roman Catholic penitential system with its doctrine of purgatory, prayer for the death, indulgences, and the sacrifice character of the Mass.
Early Protestans portrayed Catholic practices such as confession to priests, clerical celibacy, and requirements to fast and kepp vows as burdensome and spiritually oppressive. Not only did purgatory lack any biblical basis according to Protestants, but the clergy were accused of using fear of purgatory to makke money from prayers and masses.
Catholics countered that justification by faith alone was a «licence to sin».
English Catholicism was strong and popular in the early 1500’s, and those who held Protestant sympathies would remain a religious minority until political events intervened. Protestant ideas were popular among some parts of the English population, especially among academics and merchants with connections to continental Europe.
Martin Luther was a German professor of theology, composer, priest, monk, and a ceminal figure in the protestant Reformation. Another word is the European Reformation, and it was a movement within Western Christianity in the sixteenth-century Europe that posed a religious and political challenge to the Roman Catholic Church and papal authority in particuar.
It started with Luther’s Ninety-five Thesis in 1517. About 500 years ago. There was no schism between the Catholic Church and the nascent Luther until the 1521 Edict of Worms. The edict condemned Luther and officially banned citizens of the Holy Roman Empire from defending or prpagating his ideas.
The end of the Reformation era is disputed: it could be considered to end with the enactment of the confessions of faith which began the Age of Orthodoxy.
Other suggested ending years relate to the Counter-Reformation, the Peace of Westphalia, or that it never ende since there are still Protesters today.
Those who identify with Luther`s wider teachings, are called Lutherans, though Luther insisted on Christian or Evangelical as the only acceptable names for individuals who professed Christ.
In two of his later works, Martin Luther expressed antagonistic, violent views toward Jews, and called for the burning of their synagogues and their deaths. His rhetoric was not directed at Jews alone, but also towards Roman Catholics, Anabaptists, and nontrinitarian Christians.
Luther was the most widely read author of his generation, and within Germany he acquired the status of a prophet. According to the prevailing opinion among historians, his anti-Jewish rhetoric contributed significantly to the development of antisemitism in Germany, and in the 1930’s and 1940’s provided an «ideal underpinning» for the Nazis’ attacks on Jews.
Reinhold Lewin writes that anybody who «wrote against the Jews for whatever reason believed he had the right to justify himself by triumphantly referring to Luther.»
According to Michael, just about every anti-Jewish book printed in the Third Reich contained references to and quotations from Luther.
The leading member of the Nazi Party of Germany, Heinrich Himmler was one of the most powerful men in Nazi Germany and a main architect of the Holocaust. He formed the Einsatzgruppen and built extermination camps.
Himmler directed the killing of some six million Jews, between 200,000 and 500,000 Romani people, and other victims. The total number of civilians killed by the Nazi regime is estimated at eleven to fourteen million people Most of them Polish and Soviet citizens.
Heinrich Himmler (albeit never a Lutheran, having been brought up Catholic) wrote admiringly of his writing and sermons on the Jews in 1940. Professor Richard Geary noted, based on his research, that the Nazi Party received disproportionately more votes from Protestants than Catholic areas of Germany.
Chruch historian Martin Brecht said; «There is a world of difference between his belief in salvation and a racial ideology. Neverthless, his misguided agitation had the evil result that Luther fatefully became one of the «church fathers» of anti-semitism and thus provided material for the modern hatred of the Jews, cloaking it with the authority of the Reformer.»
Luther saw the Turks as a scourgge sent by God to punish Christians, as agents of the Biblical apocalypse that would destroy the Antichrist, whom Luther believed to be the papacy, and the Roman Church.
He went on to produce several critical pamphlets on Islam, which he called «Mohammedanism» or «the Turk». Though Luther saw the Muslim faith as a tool of the devil, he was indifferent to its practice: «Let the Turk believe and live as he will, just as one lets the papacy and others false Christians live».
Henry VIII broke England`s ties with the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church hundreds of year ago and said goodbye. Church taxes were paid straight to Rome, but not anymore. The Pope had the final word in the appointment of bishops, but that also came to an end. So is it today. The UK will no longer pay to the EU, and the EU has nothing they can say.
But they didn`t say goodbye to Europe, and so is it today. Prime Minister Boris Johnson and the United Kingdom is leaving the club European Union, but they are still a part of Europe.
The UK isn`t leaving Europe but a trading club that provides several non-rival but excludable goods to its members. Now, they want free trade and to be a member of another club like EU. We can assume the United States is on top of that list.
This is the end of the relationship with EU, but it is also the beginning of a new era for those who are building Europe. The UK is leaving the EU because EU is the problem. Not the UK. Therefore, the European Union must change.
The old European model is dead. So is the globalisation as we know it. It`s tragic for those in charge of building Europe not to see that this is a great opportunity to build a new one.
President Trump can be impeached based on presumptions. Can you believe that? Not on facts, but presumptions. And what «The Hate Trump Media Mob» love now is the EU-ambassador Sondland and his «Explosive» testimony. Wow!
The FAKE NEWS MEDIA are telling you that Trump were holding back the aid to Ukraine because he wanteed to push Ukraine to investigate Biden. But Sondland didn`t say that. He said that no one told him directly that the aid was tied to anything. «I was presuming it was», Mr Sondland said.
You cannot impeach a president based on
what people presume, think, believe or feel. When became people`s
opinion better than cold hard facts? People can have opinions, but
what they need is evidence.
«My personal belief is based on 2+2
equals 4» Mr Sondland said in the testimony. Wow! What a genius.
But Dr. Wenstrup said something even
better; 2 presumptions + 2 presumptions does not equal even 1 fact.
So, here we are. An imeachment by people`s opinion, presumption or hearsay with no criminal activity. Not even close to impeachable offense. What`s even more serious is that the Fake News Media isn`t telling us the truth.
President Trump said in September that he withheld the aid because the U.S was the only country to pay their share of the aid to Ukraine. And worst of all; Europe didn`t contribute. No aid from Europe to Ukraine. And that`s the question; Why aren`t Europe paying to Ukraine?
Impeachment in the United States at the
federal level is limited to those who may have committed «Treason,
bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors».
Bill Clinton became the second American
president to be impeached in 1998. (Andrew Johnson was impeached in
1868). Clinton had a sexual relationship with White House intern
Monica Lewinsky and he was impeached for «high crimes and
The specific charges against Clinton
were lying under oath and obstruction of justice. The Deep State made
it embarrassing for Clinton. Telling the world about the relationship
could destroy his career. That`s why he tried to hide the truth.
John F Kennedy had the same problem. He had a lot of women and his father said he had to stop because it could destroy his career. But nobody did something about it. The Mee-too movement wasn`t born either. As we all know, he was assassinated. A man who worked so hard for Human Rights.
President Trump is trying to Keep America Great but some haters wants to impeach him for «bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors» based on presumptions. Not evidence.