9-11 header



and the Culture War

by Earl Gosnell              

Nostradamus picture

Nostradamus, French Jewish prophet (1503-1566 AD)

Before explicating a prophesy of Nostradamus relating to the events of 9-11-2001, I want to clear up some confusion. A word from the Bible about prophets: (Num. 12:6-8a) "And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all my house. With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently [clearly, distinctly], and not in dark speeches." Moses was then God's appointed supreme leader on earth as now the Bible is. The faithful KJV Bible will express God's revelation clearly and distinctly while prophets like Nostradamus with their dreams and visions give us "dark speeches" difficult and sometimes impossible to interpret.

And yet even with the clear revelation of scripture, prophets can still have their place as expressed in (Num. 11:27-29) "And there ran a young man, and told Moses, and said, Eldad and Medad do prophesy in the camp. And Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of Moses, one of his young men, answered and said, My lord Moses, forbid them. And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the LORD's people were prophets, and that the LORD would put his spirit upon them!" Would that we all had the prophetic abilities of Nostradamus. But we'd still need the Bible.

I want to give an example of the interplay between the two without in any way vouching for the scholarship; this is just an illustration. According to the late Dr. Gene Scott the lost ten tribes of Israel ventured north past the Black Sea where the Anglo Saxons appeared in history and settled the British Isles, and then America. The blessing to Abraham that (Gen. 22:17) "thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies" passed to Isaac (Gen. 24:60) and then to Joseph's sons (Gen. 48, 49) and to America. The battle of Midway in the Pacific in World War II was providentially won by the allies allowing them control of the Pacific, the gate of their enemy.

According to Damon Wilson in The Mammoth Book of Nostradamus and Other Prophets—p. 410—one of Nostradamus's quatrains concerning WW2 went on about: "By sea and land there is made a great tumult:/Greater than ever will be naval battles,/Fires, animals which will make great affront." The "great naval battles" included Midway. He doesn't know for sure what the "fires and animals" meant.

The Bible and Nostradamus coexist well. Nostradamus can be sometimes puzzling. But say somebody made up a quatrain supposedly from Nostradamus describing in detail the air war above the Japanese carrier at Midway. First of all, prophets usually don't get that detailed, and then it can be easily debunked as it isn't in the record of Nostradamus in the first place. Something like that has occurred on the Internet with regard to 9-11. Sure, those fake quatrains can be easily debunked, but the accurate one is still good, although a little obscure.

An interesting perspective on 9-11 can be gained by looking at Friedrich Nietzsche's (1844-1900) most renowned book Thus Spake Zarathustra (1883). The main character Zarathustra preached, "live dangerously. Erect your cities beside Vesuvius. Send out your ships to unexplored seas. Live in a state of war." In a sense our large Trade Towers in New York were in such danger, erected without enough fire retardant to stop a jet fuel fire, and with those planes flying all about, who knows on what missions, and with people wishing us ill. Another quote from Nietzsche: "When you gaze into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." It could well be that the events of 9-11 registered with the prophet Nostradamus. If so, since we describe the event by its date, maybe Nostradamus would do the same.

(Century 10 Quatrain 72)

   The original French is as follows.                  The English translation reads:

L'an mil neuf cens nonante neuf sept mois,   In the year 1999 (and) seven months,
Du ciel viendra un grand Roi deffraieur.     From the sky will come a great King of Terror
Resusciter le grand Roi d'Angolmois.         The King of Angelmois will be resurrected.
Avant que Mars regner par bon heur.          Before and afterwards Mars rules happily.

Nothing earth shattering occurred in July of 1999, but something newsworthy certainly happened in September of 2001. Nostradamus was nothing if not cryptic in his predictions, and sept mois could well have meant Sept-ember rather than the literal seventh month July. If that were the case, then having had to add 2 to the seventh month to get the literal ninth, we might as well follow suit and add 2 to the year 1999 to get 2001 and use this as something of a key to the rest of the quatrain.

The King of Terror coming from the sky will be the second key. Why did Nostradamus use that particular reference? People rarely look up. Cats look up but people don't; they look down.

Okay, the terrorists piloting the airplanes into the World Trade Center in New York City is an event worthy of the prophet's coverage. Why the terminology, king of terror? Well, that is found in Job 18:14 when Bildad is describing the fate of the wicked.

(Job 18:12-15) "His strength shall be hungerbitten, and destruction shall be ready at his side. It shall devour the strength of his skin: even the firstborn of death shall devour his strength. His confidence shall be rooted out of his tabernacle, and it shall bring him to the king of terrors. It shall dwell in his tabernacle, because it is none of his: brimstone shall be scattered upon his habitation."

Okay, who could be this wicked who has a major failing of strength and whose dwelling is visited by the king of terror? Well, President Bill Clinton, believe it or not, can fall into God's definition of wicked if for no other reason than his problems keeping the ten commandments. There was "Thou shalt not commit adultery" and "Thou shalt not bear false witness" to name the most obvious.

Did he trip up on others? What about his wag-the-dog adventure bombing Kosovo. "Thou shalt not kill." And Vince Foster's death was always a bit suspicious. A lot of people died associated with him. Maybe it means nothing.

How about, "Thou shalt not steal"? When he and his entourage left office, the towels aboard Air Force One up and disappeared.

How about not taking God's name in vain? I don't know about his own use of God's name, but I did tackle with a judge that later became a Clinton appointee and who had no qualms about discounting God's name in the papers I presented. Appointees are promoted on their record, so that sin got shared.

My point here is that Bill Clinton could easily be regarded as wicked, and visibly at that, according to God's standards of the Ten Commandments. And his triple bypass heart surgery can easily pass for "his strength be[ing] hungerbitten, and destruction be[ing] ready at his side, devour[ing] the strength of his skin: even the firstborn of death devour[ing] his strength."

The third point is that his tabernacle was the target, and indeed he did move to New York which state was the target—along with the Pentagon. And "brimstone shall be scattered upon his habitation" can easily describe the result of the king of terror's arrival from the sky.

It did not hit Bill Clinton's house directly, to be sure,—nor would I ever want something like that to happen—but the people of the U.S. by failing to remove him from office despite his failings, went along with him being our representative president, so we share the guilt.

That passage in Job finishes with: (Job 18:16-21) "His roots shall be dried up beneath, and above shall his branch be cut off. His remembrance shall perish from the earth, and he shall have no name in the street. He shall be driven from light into darkness, and chased out of the world. He shall neither have son nor nephew among his people, nor any remaining in his dwellings. They that come after him shall be astonied at his day, as they that went before were affrighted. Surely such are the dwellings of the wicked, and this is the place of him that knoweth not God."

A lack of someone to carry on his name could be taken to mean a lack of a family successor to the presidential throne. It depends on how far Nostradamus intended to go with this in his prediction. Remember, this is a prophet's use of a biblical text, in fact quoting someone (Bildad) who wasn't all that credible in himself. Sometimes the inspired apostles got some meaning out of an Old Testament passage that was not apparent to the reader. They were inspired, and so, it seems, was Nostradamus—at least to some degree.

OK, let's move to the next line in the quatrain: "The King of Angelmois will be resurrected." Who in the world is that? A lot of ink has flowed trying to puzzle it out, but let's use the key. Angelmois is a bit long for one name, so we shall divide it in two to get: king of Angel-Mois. That doesn't make it any clearer, but if the date can be off by a factor of two, why not the name? Move the last syllable back two places to get: Mois king_of Angel. Better.

Let's work on the names individually, starting with the last Angel. Uses common enough letters, so perhaps it's an acronym. But rather than having the g digging down into the earth, let's flip it upside down so it's reaching the sky (per Nostradamus's direction), and it becomes a d, and the last name as an acronym becomes Andel—the g in Angel has been flipped: Andel.

The middle name king_of might be typically skewed per Nostradamus's style. Could be son_of which becomes something like Ben as used in Hebrew names, which is also situated correctly as a middle name.

Now let's puzzle out the first name, Mois. Suppose we were meant to go by the mwa sound, but to look at the o and the s in the name. Ah, of course, Osama bin Laden.

Bear in mind that Nostradamus was cryptic in his sayings, and maybe moreso when he gives a date, and that this is but one interpretation of the name but maybe no worse than any other. What is interesting, though, is that this King of Angelmois does in fact keep getting resurrected. I was listening to an interview on 9-11-2007 with remote viewer Ed Dames who told us that missing pilot Steve Fossett was dead, he would stake his reputation on it. If he is fond alive, Ed Dames would quit remote viewing. The host then asked him, what if he were found alive but injured? Ed Dames replied that he would quit because he was wrong. Then the host wanted to know what about if he was found near death? That would be okay, he'd just have to modify his technique. Two years ago he remote viewed that Osama bin Laden was dead. But he was only near death. His body was lifeless, but now he's alive.

Just when we think he is dead, whoops, out comes another letter from him. And what did that one letter say on the eve of the 2004 election? It criticized the U.S. for ignoring God's given laws and going about to make up our own laws of man which are not the same. That's not hard to figure out. Clinton, for example, blithely went about breaking the ten commandments, but then he broke new ground with gays in the military. That last was not God's law.

President Clinton seems to have had some influence on bin Laden through military action. According to Peter Bergen, CNN's terrorism expert, in The Osama bin Laden I Know, bin Laden was in Somalia in 1993, although that hasn't been confirmed. If so, the following speculation makes sense.

Another reporter rose. "Admiral Adams, earlier in your speech you said that Bill Clinton was more responsible for terrorism than Osama bin Laden. That sounds a little mean spirited."

"What I said was, 'Clinton unwittingly helped Osama bin Laden unify Islamic rage.' Let me explain by asking you a question. Did you see the CNN/al-Jazeera interview of bin Laden—the one shot a month after the September 11th bombings?"


"Do you remember what bin Laden said? Remember how he learned that America was vulnerable—what inspired him to attack us?"


"Excuse the historian in me. I do. It was Somalia—the Black Hawk calamity in Mogadishu. He told the reporter that America's retreat taught him that killing a few Americans would cause us to turn tail and run, because that's what Clinton did. Bin Laden said it gave him reason to bloody our nose. He used it to recruit boys into what otherwise would have looked like a hopeless cause. Clinton restricted our presence in Somalia, restricted our weaponry, sent Rangers into hell without armament, and put our boys under the command of the United Nations—bad decisions all. Then, when his failed policies resulted in the deaths of American heroes, he ordered a retreat, a retreat that was responsible for increasing terror, inspiring and emboldening Muslim militants.

"Do you recall what Clinton did next; do you remember the consequences? I'll bet none of you even knew who Osama bin Laden was before Clinton launched cruise missiles at him. Very few Muslims did, either. He was the head of an average terrorist organization—one of hundreds. But Clinton elevated him to the status of somebody important, somebody worthy of multimillion-dollar cruise missiles. His career as a terrorist took off courtesy of our President kicking a hornet's nest and walking away." The Admiral looked out upon the crowd. "The lesson here is that doing something halfway is all too often worse than doing nothing at all. We should have learned that by now."1

Okay, the final line: "Before and afterwards Mars rules happily." Mars being the god of war, this line is recognized as conflict, and I relate it to the "culture war" touted on radio talk shows and elsewhere. The war between "then" and "now," between "before" and "after," lends itself to this interpretation.
During recent decades a war against traditional morality and culture has raged in America. Those who recognized the existence of this war and warned of its consequences have received the treatment usually given to prophets. They have been ridiculed and condemned.

Pat Buchanan was excoriated in the press and the academy when he stated in his address to the 1992 Republican Convention, "There is a religious war going on. We must take back our cities, and take back our culture, and take back our country."

Evidence of the existence of the culture war abounds. William Bennett, former Secretary of Education, distinguished fellow in Cultural Policies Studies, and author of the best-selling Book of Virtues, published a report on the casualties caused by the culture war, entitled: "The Index of Leading Cultural Indicators."

In the introduction Bennett states:

"Since 1960, population has increased 41 percent; the Gross Domestic Product has nearly tripled; and total social spending by all levels of government (measured in constant 1990 dollars) has risen from $143.73 billion to $787.0 billion—more than a five-fold increase. Inflation-adjusted spending on education has increased 225 percent ...

"But during the same 30-year period there had been a 560 percent increase in violent crime; more than a 400 percent increase in illegitimate births; a quadrupling in divorce rates; a tripling of the percentage of children living in single parent homes; more than a 200 percent increase in the teenage suicide rate; and a drop of almost 80 points on the SAT scores. Modern-day social pathologies, at least great parts of them, have gotten worse. They seem impervious to government spending on their alleviation, even very large amounts of spending ...

"A disturbing and telling sign of the declining condition among the young is the result of an on-going teacher survey. Over the years teachers have been asked to identify the top problems in America's public schools. In 1940 teachers identified:

When asked the same question in 1990, teachers identified:

"Our social and civic institutions—families, churches, schools, neighborhoods and civic associations—have traditionally taken on the responsibility for providing our children with love and order; discipline and self-control; compassion and tolerance; civility and respect for legitimate authority; fidelity and honesty.

"These responsibilities, replicated through the generations, are among the constitutive acts of civilization. When these institutions fail, others may need to step in. But government, even at its best, can never be more than an auxiliary in the development of a free people's moral disposition and character.

"The social regression of the last 30 years is due in large part to the enfeebled state of our social institutions and their failure to carry out a critical and time honored task: the moral education of the young. We desperately need to recover a sense of the fundamental purpose of education which is to engage in the architecture of souls. When a self-governing society ignores this responsibility, then, as this document demonstrates, it does so at its peril."

John W. Whitehead in his historical overview book Grasping for the Wind3 starts out:

Breaking with the Past

We live in a time of great fragmentation, a time of rapid change, protest, revolution, governmental instability, inhumanity, and tribalization. Aware that something troubling is happening around us and to us, we sense that our foundations are continuously moving and appear to be crumbling. Yet we are often unsure why. The only thing that is certain is that the changes are dramatic—even cataclysmic.

Increasingly, modern life is characterized by a dehumanized view of people and a bewildering acceptance of conflict and persecution around the world. The carnage caused by wars in the twentieth century and the continuing oppression of people worldwide are clear examples of this dehumanization. Furthermore, extreme cruelty, such as faced by Jews in the 1930s and '40s, became the hallmark of the twentieth century. For many, modern society has been reduced to a struggle for survival and an attempt to overpower the forces of nature and other human beings. Despite this, even as we begin a new decade, century, and millennium, people still yearn for a sense of worth, dignity, and meaning.

Could not this be what the prophet Nostradamus was describing, a turning point being the acceptance of a new generation president Bill Clinton?

Culture eventually makes politics. The cultural seepages of the Fifties strengthened and became a torrent that swept through the nation in the Sixties, only to seem to die away in the Seventies. The election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, the defeat of the most liberal senators, seemed a reaffirmation of traditional values and proof that the Sixties were dead. They were not. The spirit of the Sixties revived in the Eighties and brought us at last to Bill and Hillary Clinton, the very personifications of the Sixties generation arrived at early middle age with its ideological baggage intact. ...

The temporary abeyance of the Sixties temper was due to the radicals being graduated from the universities and becoming invisible until they reached positions of power and influence, as they now have, across the breadth of the culture. They no longer have need for violence or confrontation, since the radicals now control the institutions they formerly attacked. ...

A New York Times editorial, In Praise of the Counterculture," [December 11, 1994, Sec. 4, p. 14.] solemnly pronounces that the counterculture is "part of us, a legacy around which Americans can now unite, rather than allow themselves to be divided." There is no possibility that Americans will unite around that legacy. Those of us who regard the Sixties as a disaster are not "allowing" ourselves to be divided; we insist on it. Opposition to the counterculture, the culture that became today's liberalism, is precisely what our culture war is about.

... It is customary to refer to the radical students or the hippies of that era as the "Sixties generation," but the great majority of that generation was not radical or hippie, any more than the majority of them today are modern liberals. In fact, Clinton's age group gave him a lower proportion of its vote than did any other age cohort. But the radicals set the tone and the pace, particularly in the more prestigious universities. One lesson we learned is that a minority of fanatical disposition can effectively control an institution.

It is commonly said that the New Left of the Sixties collapsed and disappeared. "Has there ever been such politically barren radicalism as that of the Sixties?" Columnist George Will wrote, "... The Sixties are dead. Not a moment too soon." ["Slamming the Doors," Newsweek, March 25, 1991, pp. 65-6.] Would that it were so, but the truth, alas, is otherwise. The New Left did collapse as a political movement because of its internal incoherence and amorphous program, and because its revolutionary rhetoric and proclivity for violence repelled most Americans. There never was any chance that this collection of frantic youths could become or instigate a popular movement. What we see in modern liberalism, however, may be the ultimate triumph of the New Left.

Its adherents did not go away or change their minds; the New Left shattered into a multitude of single-issue groups. We now have, to name but a few, radical feminists, black extremists, animal rights groups, radical environmentalists, activist homosexual organizations, multiculturalists, and new or freshly radicalized organizations such as People for the American Way, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), the National Organization of Women (NOW), and Planned Parenthood.

Each of these pursues a piece of the agenda of the cultural and political Left, but they do not announce publicly an overarching program, as the New Left did, that would enable people to see that the separate groups and causes add up to a general radical philosophy. Yet these groups are in touch with one another and often come together in a coalition on specific issues. The splintering of the New Left proved to be an advantage because the movement became less visible and therefore more powerful, its goals more attainable, than was the case in the sixties. ...

"Whatever their other successes and failures, the youthful radicals of that decade propelled a new set of values from the fringes to the very midst of contemporary social conflict."4 That was written in 1982. It seems even more true today.

... The Sixties generation's fixation on equality has permeated our society and its institutions, much to our disadvantage. Their idea of liberty has now become license in language, popular culture, and sexuality.

The idea that everything is political has taken hold. We know its current form as "political correctness," a distemper that afflicts the universities in their departments of humanities, social sciences, and law. Works of literature are read for their subtexts, usually existing only in the mind of the politically correct reader, about the oppression of women, Western imperialism, colonialism, and racism. Political correctness is not to be confined to the enclaves of the academy. It is now to be found in museums, art galleries, seminaries, foundations—all the institutions related to opinion and attitude formation.

A corollary to the politicization of the culture is the tactic of assaulting one's opponents as not merely wrong but morally evil. That was, of course, a key stratagem of the New Left, and it remains a crucial weapon in modern liberalism's armory. The rioters in the streets did not criticize the universities as in need of reform but as institutions rotten with immorality from top to bottom. Critics of Hillary Clinton's health care plan were not said to be mistaken but were denounced as greedy pharmaceutical companies, doctors, and insurance companies out to protect their illicit profits.

The student radicals' habitual lying is easily enough explained. They were antinomians. Just as those Christian heretics thought themselves freed by God's grace from any obligation to the moral law, so the student radicals, imbued with the political grace of the Left, were freed of the restraints of law and morality. It could not be immoral to lie in a noble cause. For the same reason, it could not be wrong to break laws or heads.

Modern liberals, being in charge of the institutions they once attacked, have no need to break heads and only an occasional need to break laws. They do, however, have a need to lie, and do so abundantly, since many Americans would not like their actual agenda.

One of the New Left's ambitions was to move the Democratic Party further to the left of the American center, to convert it to a more radical stance from the traditional liberal-labor ideology the party had espoused since Franklin Roosevelt built his coalition. Historian Terry H. Anderson, a rather uncritical admirer of the New left, claims that the Democrats embraced the ideas expressed in the Port Huron Statement. [A manifesto setting forth the SDS agenda for changing human beings, the nation, and the world.] There is much truth in that. Certainly student radicals provided the McGovern cadres that took the party left in 1972. Later, as Capitol Hill staffers and elected congressmen, they moved the congressional Democrats well to the left of most Americans who consider themselves Democrats. The parties are aligning themselves along the lines of the war in the culture. Issues such as flag burning, special homosexual rights, feminism, (including women in combat), quotas and affirmative action, the direction of welfare reform, all of these and more already are or are coming to be issues that divide Congress along party lines. The perception that the Democrats are on the wrong side of some of these issues helps to explain the political successes of the Republicans in recent years.

In a word, everything ultimately depends on the temper of the American people. That temper is uncertain. There may be reason to think that a major portion of the American public has changed its values over the past thirty years, and that much of the public is no longer concerned with issues of personal morality and responsibility. The evidence frequently offered is the President of the United States. William Jefferson Clinton is the very model of the modern liberal. He epitomizes the leading edge of the trends ... discussed. The London Spectator, shortly after the 1992 presidential election, ["Virtue Unrewarded," November 7, 1992, p. 5.] saw the election result as representing a moral and cultural sea change in the United States.

The election of Governor Bill Clinton is nothing less than a cultural revolution. ... [Americans] have chosen a youngish man, with little experience beyond the parochial politics of Arkansas, dogged by accusations of indiscriminate marital infidelity, and with no record of military service (to put it politely) to embody the aspirations and values of the nation. ... [T]his suggests that the America of the Baby Boomers is a radically different place from the America of their parents. ...

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that a large part of the American people have turned their backs on that old-fashioned quality: Virtue—private and public virtue.

Because it did not allow for the unpalatability of the alternatives American voters had—the feckless George Bush and the unstable Ross Perot—the Spectator may have been somewhat too hard on us. Still, thirty years ago, Clinton's behavior would have been absolutely disqualifying. Since the 1992 election, the public has learned far more about what is known, euphemistically, as the "character issue." The additional information abundantly confirms the Spectator's judgment about the man in both his private and public lives and adds new charges to a list that is already lengthy. Yet none of this appears to affect Clinton's popularity. It is difficult not to conclude that something about our moral perceptions and reactions has changed profoundly.
Robert H. Bork, Slouching Towards Gomorrah5
The scripture reference is, (Isaiah 24:5) "The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant." And how would we characterize our modern world's morality?
Contemporary Thought6

In recent years Western Civilization has undergone a series of critical moral changes. The prohibition of gambling has been replaced by legal state lotteries. Abortion, once considered heinous, is now a mother's right. Pornography, which used to be considered trash, is hailed as a valiant expression of "freedom of speech." The uncommon practice of divorce now affects almost every household. Homosexuality and prostitution, words unfit to mention two or three decades ago, are now deemed alternative lifestyles.

The field of economics has likewise produced its moral changes. Sluggards can now gain wealth through government enforced wealth transfer programs and the sin of usury (interest) no longer exists.

Taking it a point at a time, the twin towers of the world trade center were in fact fireproofed to withstand the heat of, say, a wood fire, but not the heat of burning jet fuel—which the architect could have done but didn't. But there are lots of jets flying around up there. Living dangerously we built our city beside Vesuvius of infamous volcanic eruption.

The terrorist pilots had gone to our flight schools to learn how to steer a large airplane but not how to land it. It seemed odd to the instructor but the FBI didn't follow up. Allowing men with that training aboard our commercial airlines is to send our ships to unexplored seas. Who knew what they were going to do with their training?

It is not too hard to figure out a sequence of cause and effect. The election of 2000. The incumbent always enjoys an advantage. If Bill Clinton's impeachment had gone through, he would have been out of office, and Al Gore would have been president. His incumbency would have cinched the election for him instead of having him lose to a "tie" count. Such a possibility—among others—is even mentioned by senior analyst and CNN anchorman Jeff Greenfield:

Because of who Bill Clinton was, where he came from, the generational issues he seemed to embody, he put the battle over culture squarely into Campaign 2000. In the words of Time magazine's editor Eric Pooley, "This election reflected a culture war. There are two sides here, and they break down as follows: Was Bill Clinton good or bad for America? Were the 60's good or bad for America? Were the 'loosenings' that followed in the 1970's good or bad for America?" ...

Bill Clinton did not create this culture war. ... By his own conduct, however, he had helped reopen that war, and he had laid a heavy burden on Al Gore's shoulders.

If Senator Tom Daschle and House Minority Leader Richard Gephart had marched up Pennsylvania Avenue in August 1998 and told President Clinton that his self-indulgence and mendacity required his resignation, Al Gore would have been an incumbent president, embracing the record of peace and prosperity, instead of edging away from it, for fear it would tie him to the scandal. 7
If Al Gore were the one elected president in 2000, would we have gone to war in Iraq? Instead, Bush was elected (sort of). That had further ramifications:
The incoming Bush team was not that interested in fighting Al-Qaeda. ...

¶On January 31, 2001, President Bush was given the Hart/Rudman report on US domestic terrorism. ... The commission set up By President Clinton and Newt Gingrich direly warned of an impending attack & recommend[ed] broad strategies in confronting terrorism in the 21st century. ... Bush discreetly decided to put the plan on hold. ...

¶The Bush team was backing off fighting terrorism. They felt it was the Clinton people who were obsessed with it. "It was clear," a former Clinton official told Time magazine, "that this was not the same priority to them that it was for us." ...

¶Domestic terrorism, which Hart, Clarke and Tenet had desperately warned was imminent, was not on the White House's top priority list. The FBI followed the President's lead. ...

¶On the 18th of April, 2001, the FAA issued a warning that Middle Eastern terrorists might highjack or blow up a jetliner. They requested that airlines "demonstrate a high degree of alertness."

Then President Bush was told by intelligence sources that al-Qaeda was going to attack US targets. Bush still did not react to the information.

In Europe, the German, Spanish and Italian governments were nabbing al-Qaeda cells. Plots were pressured out of the suspects. As the chatter grew and the intelligence community was abuzz about incoming attacks, the Bush team would not budge. They sat on the sidelines and did nothing.8

Now we live in a state of war that would pain me to elaborate on. Historically conflicts between Christendom and Islam are exacerbated when the Christian nations forsake their moral underpinnings which inflames the Muslims who are extreme in theirs.

Returning to Nietzsche, as summarized in Whitehead's book9,

"Nietzsche's works present two conflicting views of human behavior, the morality of the masters and the morality of mass humanity. The teaching of Christ and the prophets before him had assigned to every person equal worth and equal rights, the basic principles of democracy and Western society. According to Nietzsche, however, assigning worth to mass humanity would reduce the importance of the leaders. Instead he believed that moral systems must first bow before the gradations of rank. It therefore became immoral to say that what is right for one is right for all.
We were dead on with Nietzsche when refusing to remove an impeached Bill Clinton from office. Sure he did wrong, but he was president.

According to Whitehead's book10, Nietzsche was hoping that his influence and that of others "could overturn the hegemony of Christian culture in the West, leading to a new age of sexual excess and unfettered will. The new age would center around a rebirth of sexual license so strong that it would overwhelm the order of every family. It would unleash the wildest bestiality of nature in a mixture of lust and cruelty."

I don't believe the reputation of Nostradamus stands or falls on one quatrain with a date in it or that my interpretation is the only one or even the best, but I believe we need to look at where we are going as Americans. Our country was founded by Christian men with a government set up accordingly from such a starting point to allow freedom. There is an inherent incompatibility between Christianity and other religions, i.e. (II Cor. 6:14a) "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: ...", and a culture derived from Christian standards will be bewildered if it tries to include other kinds of standards with them. For example, giving women the vote creates a conflict between what they are used to being allowed in society at large and what they are permitted by scripture to do in the church: not rule over men. Similarly, while the scripture judges homosexuality a lot harsher than slavery, a society that categorically opposes slavery—and tries to undo its historical effects—while at the same time accommodating homosexuality will not peacefully coexist with Christianity.

For information on Christian roots in our culture, I recommend these links:

Home Home


1. Craig Winn & Ken Power, Tea with Terrorists (Charlottesville: CricketSong Books, 2002) pp. 544f.
Back to document return

2. Dr. Fred Schwarz, Beating the Unbeatable Foe: One man's victory over communism, leviathan, and the last enemy (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 1996) pp. 429-31.
Back to document Back

3. John W. Whitehead, grasping for the wind the search for meaning in the 20th century (Grand Rapids: ZondervanPublishingHouse, 2001) p. 15.
Back to document Back

4. Stanley Rothman and S. Robert Lichter, Roots of Radicalism: Jews, Christians, and the New Left (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982) pp. 392-4.
Back to documentBack

5. Robert H. Bork, Slouching Towards Gomorrah (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1996) pp. 2, 34-5, 38, 52-5, 340-1.
Back to documentBack

6. Gary Sanseri, A Banker's Confession (Portland: Back Home Industries, 1991) pp. 88-9. Back to document Back

7. Jeff Greenfield, "Oh, Waiter! One Order of Crow!": inside the strangest presidential election finish in American history (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 2001) pp. 203f, xiv.
Back to documentBack

8. Toby Rogers, Ambushed (Walterville, OR: TrineDay, 2004) pp. 99, 102, 103f, 105, 109. Back to documentBack

9. John W. Whitehead, grasping for the wind the search for meaning in the 20th century (Grand Rapids: ZondervanPublishingHouse, 2001) p. 65.
Back to documentBack

10. Ibid., p. 63.
Back to document Back


Earl Gosnell
1950 Franklin Bv., Box 15
Eugene, OR 97403

Contact: feedbackatbibles.n7nz.org

Copyright © 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008 Earl S. Gosnell III Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 License.

Permission is hereby granted to use the portions original to this study--with credit given, of course--in intellectually honest non-profit educational material. The material I myself have quoted has its own copyrights which I cannot speak for but have used here under the fair use doctrine:

I have quoted published material for teaching, comment and illustration in this nonprofit teaching endeavor on Nostradamus, 9/11, and the "Culture War". The sources are included at the end in notes. Such uses must be judged on individual merit, of course, so I cannot say how other uses of the same material might fare.

Any particular questions or requests for permissions may be addressed to me, the author.

Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional    Valid CSS!

Web page problems?
Contact: webfootster32atbibles.n7nz.org