315h rip

Stephan Berndt

Countdown World War 3.0

The Appearance of the Last Omens

The prophecies and visions of the clairvoyants are being fulfilled

Translation by boergle

Thanks to Deserè for making me aware of this book

1st edition May 2015

Copyright © 2015 by Kopp Verlag, Bertha-Benz-Straße 10, D-72108 Rottenburg

All rights reserved

Cover design: Nicole Lechner

Typesetting and layout: GGP Media GmbH, Pößneck

Editing: Kurt Schlautan

Printing and binding: GGP Media GmbH , Pößneck

ISBN: 978-3-86445-214-7

We would be happy to send you our list of publishers

Kopp Verlag
Bertha-Benz-Straße 10
D-72108 Rottenburg
Email: info@kopp-verlag.de
Tel.: (0 74 72) 98 06-0
Fax: (0 74 72) 98 06-11

You can also find our book program on the Internet at: www.kopp-verlag.de
 Contents

Introduction 11
The future is a matter of trust 11
Different future scenarios 12
The official prophecy 12
The New Age vision of the future 13
The future vision of totalitarianism 13
The future of America in the eyes of the white man 14
The future of the USA in the eyes of the red man 15
The first casualty of the war 16
Warnings before the great war 18
The armaments industry in the USA and Russia 20
When it gets serious, I have to lie! 32
The prophesied scenario for Europe 36
A luxury liner with subprime crew 36
In the holy kingdom of democracy 37
The scenario at a glance 39
The scenario in detail 40
Science and clairvoyance 43
Guessing the reason for the war 48
The USA as the alleged main culprit 48
Russia as the alleged main culprit 49
Angela Merkel - the best Putin understander by far 51
Domino theory 2.0 53
Don't talk about the Cold War 57
»A relapse into the Cold War must be prevented at all costs!« 58
"No new Cold War if..." 65
The Prophetic Tradition of the Assault from the East 70
Focus Russia 75
A Great Man Rises in Europe 75
Putin and the 1999 Solar Eclipse 75
Who is Putin? 77
Understanding the omens 84
The quality of the omens 86
The documentation and number of sources 87
The credibility of each source 87
All sorts of things have been predicted 88
Germany's best false friends 90
World War and hot porridge 98
The Russian Surprise Attack 104
Argus Eyes and Blind Spots 119
Economic sanctions 120
And what if the economic sanctions don't work? 125
The thing with the price of oil 126
Ukraine 131
The strategic importance of Ukraine for Russia 137
The (Western) Balkans 139
A Turkish-Greek War? 140
Grain Harvest Attack 145
Flashpoint Middle East 149
A New Middle East War 149
The Arab Spring 149
"It will start in the Middle East." 152
Israel and the plan for the big bang 156 Israel's number one strategic problem 157
Syria 159
Russia's advance to Jerusalem? 163
Summary on the topic of the new Middle East war 170
Everyone cries: "Peace, Shalom!" 172
Europa 177
Economy and War 177
Civil wars in Europe 178
France - or: That's the chaos! 182
The fire in Paris as an omen for all of Europe 186
Germany - on the edge of incompetence 188
Social consequences of a total economic collapse 197
Signs of inflation 201
Inflation? What inflation? 202
The last shot 207
Taxes 211
When will the euro crash? 213
Refugees in Germany 214
German refugees 223
State infrastructure programs 225
Italy - red flags in the Vatican 229
The bloodbath in the Vatican 232
The escape of the Pope 233
A media campaign against the Pope? 236
A papal castling before the big showdown? 237
The alleged papal trip to Moscow 238
The weather in the months before the war 238
The mild pre-war winter 239
The early spring 241
The cold snap in summer 243
A drought, perhaps, in midsummer 245
Other portents for Europe 246
An international crisis in the spring of the war year 246
The assassination attempt before the war broke out 249
Close to the limit 251
A large solar flare as a "warning"? 255
The "last" pope 256
Civil war in Spain 257
The world outside Europe 259
The price of gold 259
Swarms of Drones from the South 263
The Scenario 267
The Fall of Babylon 274
Addendum 283
The great California earthquake 284
Unknown diseases 286
Ending 289
What to do? 289
A future without a vision? 292
Vision means future 294
Appendix 299
The Three-Day Eclipse 299
Explanations of the Three-Day Eclipse Table 302
Recommended Reading 305
Prophecies 305
precaution 305
Literaturcodes 306
Photo credit 307
Notes 308
Bibliography 319
Gazetteer 321
Directory of persons 324
 Introduction

The Future is a Matter of Trust

This book offers the reader a comparison between the current economic and political
developments in Europe and the predictions of well-known European clairvoyants.

When choosing these clairvoyants, the majority of them are the best-known and most reliable
clairvoyants from all over Europe. "Secured" means that their predictions were documented
early enough and it can therefore be ruled out that they are subsequent falsifications.

Of course it could be that the predictions of these psychics will turn out to be wrong one day,
but at least it is certain that they made these predictions and that it was some years ago.

Almost all of the psychics used in the book can be traced back to “old” traditional European
prophecy, those sources that some so-called New Age authors believe have lost their validity
sometime toward the end of the 20th century, a belief that has spread widely in recent
decades, but now appears more and more questionable in view of the crisis with Russia.

Most of the traditional European prophecies can be condensed into a single grand scenario.
This grand scenario is the basis of this book. The book compares this scenario to what is
currently happening on the planet. There are striking parallels between reality and prophecy,
especially in the relationship between the West and Russia, which, as we all know, has
deteriorated dramatically since 2014. The striking parallels between prophecy and reality are
a fact. And this fact cannot be disputed either. However, there is still enough room for
interpretation, after all no one can say whether the remaining prophecies of the traditional
European seers will also come true. But if these seers were right, we would still have a long
way to go. Among other things, a sudden, surprising military attack by Russia on Central
Europe, which, however - this should be emphasised at this point - would definitely not be a
nuclear war. This war would also be very short, and Russia's defeat would become apparent
after just a few weeks.

Since this book is not entirely free of a certain suggestive style, I want to put traditional
European prophecy into perspective at the outset and emphasise that ultimately nobody
knows the future: neither clairvoyants nor prophecy researchers like me know what the future
will bring. A vision of the future should never be confused with the real future.
 Different future scenarios

In addition to the great vision of the future of traditional European prophecy, there are of course
other visions of the future. European prophecy has a very specific future 'on offer', if you will,
and you just have to see if you can find another vision of the future somewhere that you trust
more and whose 'prophets' you believe more. You are free to choose. The offer is big.

Such »future sellers« used to be called »prophets«. Such a prophet was ideally an ambitious
psychic who wanted everyone to hear how he saw the future and who wanted people to
believe him. In principle, a prophet was a clairvoyant with spiritual, social and also political
ambitions.

Our image of the prophet in general is of course significantly shaped by the Bible, in which the
prophets appear as outstanding people. As a rule, these biblical prophets always initially had
a supernatural vision, so in the beginning they were only seers or clairvoyants, and only then
set about copying their vision of the future into the minds of their fellow human beings. First
comes the vision, then the propaganda. One can bring the matter to this point.

The Official Prophecy

Even today there is a strong and ultimately very present form of prophecy in the public sphere,
but it does not require any supernatural vision. Therefore, it is legitimised and justified
differently. But in the end it is believed and internalised by the broad mass of people just as it
was 1000 years ago.

Propagandists of the official prophecy's image of the future are politicians, mass media, the
finance and insurance industries, but also the advertising industry and science. Today's
prophecy or prophetic propaganda is more subliminal mainly through the mass media. The
actual office of prophet - the great prophet on the stage in the limelight - is spread over an
entire team, entire social groups, and the individual heads are no longer consciously perceived
as prophets. Still, the end result is the same. The vast majority of people are still walking
around with a vision of the future they picked up somewhere. Somewhere people have found
the individual parts of this vision of the future, or it was secretly foisted on them.

Ultimately, the future and vision of the future are always a question of faith; in times of
ubiquitous communication technology as well as at the birth of Christ. Nobody knows the
future. Everyone only believes in a certain idea of the future. And just like thousands of years
ago, one still asks oneself who one believes in which future.
The "official prophecy" is a variant of prophecy that cannot be avoided. Their vision of the
future is not homogeneous and cannot be sharply defined, it is frayed and has soft transitions,
but this vision of the future has something of an inner focus: the official prophecy spreads the
belief that our western society is essentially on the right track way and that the ruling class
knows the way forward. In order to be more convincing, this public belief in the future comes
with a certain scientific posturing, but in its core substance it is and remains a pure question
of faith. And a key tenet of official prophecy reads:

There will never be war in Central Europe again!

The New Age Vision of the Future

The New Age vision of the future suggests a global change in consciousness that will enable
mankind to either avoid or even leave behind a large part of the self-made problems
completely, above all, of course, a third world war.

After 2012, and even more so since early 2014, the New Age belief in a "soft transition" has
come into somewhat of a crisis, but it still has considerable reverberations, and the
fundamental rejection of the "old seers" persists in the New Age still.

Totalitarianism's Vision of the Future

If one looks further back into the past century, the vision of the future of the National Socialists
and the Communists should be mentioned in the first place. Both ideologies could only work
on the basis of a grand vision of the future. Many millions of people believed in the »Thousand
Year Reich« or »World Communism«, but in the end it all turned out to be a big mistake. This
error, however, had nothing to do with a lack of cognitive intelligence and not having read
enough books. A high intelligence quotient and a completed university degree in no way
prevented falling into the trap of these visions of the future. This is proven by the many 100,000
well-trained followers of these two systems

The failure of the great collective future visions of the 20th century shows that even tens of
millions of people who are highly motivated and inspired by belief in a certain future can go
completely astray. So much so that later they have trouble looking their children and
grandchildren in the eye and explaining the big mistake.
 The Future of the USA in sight of the white man
As far as the present is concerned, the "official" picture of the future in the USA is of course
also interesting, as it differs significantly from the official prophecy in Europe. Here is an
excerpt from a speech given by US Vice President Joe Biden on October 3, 2014 to young
students at the Kennedy School of Government, an elite school for future politicians and top
officials:

“We [the US] did not crumble after 9/11. [...] We are Americans. We Americans will never take off. we endure. We
overcome things. We are destined to achieve our goal. [We own the finish line.] So don't overstate the threat to
America. Nobody told you to crawl under the table and think about a nuclear attack. [...] This brings me to [...] the
last point: The strength of the US economy! Without a strong economic base, none of what I've talked about is
possible. None of that. It all relies on the US continuing to have the most flexible and vital economy in the world.
And America is back. America continues to be the world's leading economy. [...] I am optimistic because I know
the history [...] of this country. And I've never been as optimistic about America's future as I am today. And that's
no exaggeration. We're in a better position than every other nation in this world and we remain the world's leading
economy in the 21st century. [...] We have the largest energy reserves in the world. We have the most flexible
financial capital system in the world, the most productive workers. [...] The US is the best place in the world to
invest. [...] we are in such a good position [...] if we invest in our people [...]. America's uniqueness is that we are a
race of people who agree [...] - "We are the people."].1

US Vice President Joe Biden - now 72 years old - sees the future of the USA more positively
and optimistically than ever before in his entire life. Or so he says.
In striking contrast to Joe Biden's fantastic vision of the future of the USA, there have been a
number of intellectuals in Europe for some time who see the future of the USA completely
differently and this, among other things, with the gigantic foreign debt of the USA, the chronic
foreign trade deficit and the strategic weakness of the US dollar.
So the question is: is politics being made here with a vision for the future? Is Joe Biden telling
the truth? is he wrong? Or is he knowingly telling the untruth?

Fig. 1: Der Spiegel, November 5, 2012

The Future of the USA in the Eyes of the Red Man

Of course, the future of the USA also includes the vision of the North American natives who
have been living there for over 10,000 years. As with many other indigenous peoples or
"primitive" peoples, some supernatural inspiration and clairvoyant experiences also flow into
the North American Indians' vision of the future. In this sense, Native American prophecy is
much closer to traditional European prophecy than to official US prophecy.
The following future vision of the Hopi Indians - to put it cautiously - does not really fit what
Joe Biden said above:
... time [...] comes to a point where it renews itself again. [...] First there is a time of purification, and then a time of
renewal. We are very close to that time of renewal. We [the Hopis] were told we would see [white] America come
- and go.
In a way, America is already dying [...] from within. Because they don't stick to the rules of how to live in this world.
everything is coming to a point where [...] man's inability to live in a spiritual way will lead to a crossroads with huge
problems. It is the belief of the Hopis - it is our belief - that if one is not spiritually connected to the world and does
not see the spiritual reality [...] that slightly you will not make it.2

There can hardly be a greater contradiction than between Joe Biden's "America's best future
ever" and an America that the Hopis see as "dying." Such a contradiction can no longer be
explained with “misunderstandings” or straightened out with any abstruse attempts at
interpretation. That doesn't add up. One of them - Hopi Indians or the US Vice President -
must be wrong. One of them is grossly mistaken. Or he lies that the beams bend.

So there are very different visions of the future. Some are psychic, others rational or politically
inspired. And it is precisely the politically motivated vision of the future that, by its very nature,
must strive to outdo other visions of the future, to keep silent about them, ignore them, make
them look ridiculous and, if necessary, to fight them. The official prophecy has a kind of chronic
top dog complex. This can be observed again and again in history.

Ultimately, since no one really knows the future until it's here, one has to believe.
Unfortunately, you have no choice here. Future always means faith. You can only choose who
you believe. The question is whether it is advisable to believe any political leaders and their
vision and promises for the future. After our experiences with Kaiser Wilhelm II, Adolf Hitler
and Erich Honecker, we Germans should actually have become somewhat more cautious in
this regard.

The First Casualty of the War

This book consists of three main elements:

1. what European clairvoyants and prophecies predict about the (possible) future
2. What is actually happening in Germany, Europe and the world
3. the presentation of these events in the opinion-forming mass media
Point 3 consists of a number of small excursions into the colourful world of lies and is intended
to sensitise the reader to the fact that we as a society as a whole are sinking more and more
into a morass of deceptive manoeuvres, half-truths and lies month by month and year by year
and are making it more and more difficult for us to see what is actually going on in the world.
As a result of the 100th anniversary of the outbreak of the First World War in 2014, but also
the 75th anniversary of the outbreak of the Second World War, and of course also as a result
of the new conflict with Russia that became all too evident in 2014, there was »war« in 2014
always a big topic. The mainstream media, in particular, said that "truth is the first casualty of
war." Surprisingly, there was and still is no doubt about this first casualty of the war, no matter
which political direction someone comes from or what worldview they represent. When war
breaks out, people lie. Nobody denies that. In more detailed discussions of the anniversary
year 2014, it was also established that, of course, people lie before wars. There are enough
historical examples, e.g. B. US lies before its military involvement in Vietnam (Tonkin Incident,
1964) or US lies before its attack on Iraq in 2003. But other powers also lie and have lied, for
example the German Chancellor Bismarck before the Franco-Prussian War 1870/1871
(Emser Depesche). Or the Nazis, who blamed the Poles for the fictitious attack by the SS on
the German transmitter in Gleiwitz in 1939, which had to serve as the reason for the attack on
Poland.

Wars have often been lied about in history. The broad masses suspected little or nothing and
had hardly any opportunity to find out more about the background. The latter in particular has
changed fundamentally today. Today we're in an absolutely fantastic situation, historically
speaking, because thanks to the Internet, virtually anyone who can read and write and use a
computer keyboard can get to the bottom of things if something strikes them as odd.

Ordinary citizens today are in the enviable position of being able to recognize, and to tear a
little, the web of lies that is cast over the dozing people in the run-up to war. Thanks to the
Internet, citizens can now see in good time what is actually going on in the world and what is
approaching them, so that they can, if necessary, avoid the avalanche of world politics in good
time.

The problem is - and this is where it gets almost creepy - that the vast majority of people don't
even use this opportunity and don't even try to get to the bottom of things. The reason for this
is probably a mixture of general indifference and traditionally naïve gullibility. And it is precisely
this state of naivety and ignorance that is clearly reflected in European prophecy: it is said
again and again that the Russian attack would come as a complete surprise to the general
public!

In any case, there is no way to understand the core themes of European prophecy without
including the shadow of a big lie in the overall picture. This lie plays a major role in all of this.
While she's not the actual star of the show, she does appear on stage quite often. That's why
I will always use concrete examples to show how the public is being duped. And you can check
all of that in minutes. If you want.

Again: I'm not talking about any kind of cheating, which is annoying in the short term but
doesn't matter in the long run. I - like others - speak of the possibility that we will be lulled into
a false sense of security with lies and ultimately manoeuvred into a world war. It is about the
lie as a necessary, indispensable and systemic part of a crime against humanity that is brewing
here and now, in real time, in 3D and with all the trimmings before all of our eyes.
Thus the lie itself becomes the omen of an impending great war.

Warnings of the Great War

On Friday, May 16, 2014 - the Ukraine crisis had meanwhile reached a climax again, and the
German media, talk shows and discussion groups were warning of an impending major war
with Russia - several flagships of the German media landscape, such as the ßi'W-Zeitung,
Spiegel-Online, Focus and Handelsblatt Excerpts from an interview with former Chancellor
Helmut Schmidt. In this interview, the former chancellor warned of the danger of a third world
war. Spiegel Online wrote:
Helmut Schmidt settles accounts with EU foreign policy in the Ukraine crisis. The former chancellor attests to the
incompetence of the Brussels officials - and warns of the danger of a third world war.

Literally, according to Spiegel, Schmidt said:

I don't believe in talking about a Third World War, let alone calls for more money for NATO armaments. But the
danger that the situation would deteriorate like in August 1914 is increasing day by day. Unfortunately, at the
moment there is no one making any suggestions about the future of Ukraine.

On June 28, 1914, the heir to the Austrian throne Franz Ferdinand was assassinated in
Sarajevo (Serbia). The assassination put Austria under pressure, and through July 1914 the
political situation in Europe escalated to such an extent that Austria-Hungary declared war on
the Kingdom of Serbia on July 28. This was followed by three days of rigid shock. Then it
rained down declarations of war: On August 1, Germany declared war on Russia, and on
August 3 France. On August 4th, German troops invaded Belgium. England then declared war
on Germany, etc.

Helmut Schmidt was obviously wrong and actually meant July 1914. Nevertheless, it is clear
how tense and unpredictable the situation in Ukraine was in May 2014. Two months after the
interview with Helmut Schmidt, the situation worsened significantly, as he had feared: on July
17, 2014, the Malaysian passenger plane MH17 was shot down over the embattled eastern
Ukraine. Around 300 people died, including two thirds of Dutch citizens. In the next possible
issue after MH17 was shot down, Der Spiegel printed photos of around 60 crash victims on
the front page and demanded in large letters »Stop Putin now!«. Media worldwide took part in
the anti-Putin sentiment.

The MH 17 crash was reminiscent of the assassination attempt in Sarajevo: in an

internationally tense situation, an act of killing took place, which was followed by a general
wave of indignation, which was evidently fueled by the European mass media, and the call for
war grew louder. Of course, in the summer of 2014 no one called for war directly - last but not
least, one fears the Russian atomic bombs - but when Der Spiegel, on behalf of a number of
politicians in those days, calls on Putin to stop "now", one has to ask oneself how this should
be done immediately should have stopped? Since a hot military war with Russia is ruled out,
it can only mean that a de facto economic war is being launched against Russia and economic
sanctions are being imposed that make Russia unmistakably aware of the seriousness of the
situation.

The big bang didn't materialise in 2014. So you can blame Helmut Schmidt for the black
painting? No, because the former chancellor is by no means the only one who feared a world
war as early as 2014 in view of new East-West tensions. Mikhail Gorbachev, for example, has
repeatedly faced an impending World War warning, so u. a. in an interview with Swiss
television (SFR) on 3 October 17, 2014.3 The moderator there asked him: "Are we now at a
turning point in history again?" Gorbachev responded:

Yes, yes, unfortunately. The whole trouble is that we did a lot during the Cold War, which lasted 40 years, from
which we have not been able to free ourselves in our heads and our politics to this day. [...]
I condemn such a policy. That's not what today's world needs. After the Cold War, people realised that one could
live and work together peacefully, conflicts were contained, armies were downsized, defence budgets were cut [...]
Now the idea of a new war is being thrust upon us. Circles interested in rearmament make it appear that the
situation is frightening, but actually they want to accustom us to the idea of a new war, a third world war.

Gorbachev is saying that somewhere on our planet certain, ultimately very concrete people
are working towards a third world war, circles “who are interested in rearmament”. It is clear
that these circles should be primarily active in the USA and Russia. While Gorbachev is not
saying that these free-roaming potential mass murderers will succeed, he seems to think they
have the power to provoke a hot war, or Gorbachev seems to fear they already have too much
power than you can stop them. This corresponds to Helmut Schmidt's above sentence: "But
unfortunately there is currently no one making any suggestions for the future of Ukraine."

It is safe to assume that such proposals did exist. A few of the tens of thousands of western
politicians will already have corresponding ideas. But apparently these proposals were not
able to gain a majority at that point in time. From Gorbachev's point of view, this would mean
that the majority of EU politicians work alongside the armaments profiteers, whether
intentionally or negligently remains to be seen.

Now every citizen should actually suspect that a new arms race, and an arms race war, must
follow relatively soon after a cold war that has started between NATO and Russia. Unless
someone like Mikhail Gorbachev arrives in time to ensure a peaceful rapprochement. The real,
incarnate Gorbachev, however, made a rather disillusioned impression in the interview with
Swiss television.

The Armaments Industry in the USA and Russia

Otherwise, it is unlikely that Mikhail Gorbachev also wanted to use his words to criticise the
Russian armaments industry. That actually wouldn't make any sense, after all, in 2013 the
leading NATO power alone, the USA, spent 640 billion US dollars on armaments - but Russia
only spent 88 billion.4 That is around 14 percent of the US military budget. The Russian
armament can't really be the main problem there. That's simple maths. The main problem
would logically be the sevenfold armament share of the USA.
Russia has only 45 percent of the population of the United States, and Russia is considered
technologically and industrially backward. How is it supposed to win an arms race not only
against the USA, but against the whole of NATO? Russia can only lose an arms race with the
West. In principle, every Russian citizen knows that, after all, the West has already pushed
the USSR into an arms race that has finally ruined their economy. The USSR around 1980
still had twice as many inhabitants as today's Russia and also the allies GDR, Poland,
Czechoslovakia, etc. In plain language: there will never, ever be a real, long-term arms race
between the West and Russia.

Should Russian engineers fail to produce any cheap miracle weapons, Russia has lost the
new arms race from the start. The whole idea of an arms race is utter nonsense and distracts
from the real problem.

So what options for action are left for a staunchly anti-Western Putin team? What else could
Putin do? Give up the game and throw the cards on the table? Or keep playing dirty tricks and
up the ante?

Unfortunately, Gorbachev's 2014 warning of a Third World War is not his first. As early as
December 2011, in a speech at an award ceremony in Munich, he warned of a Third World
War if the United States and Russia again clashed over the levers of a local conflict.
Gorbachev gave this speech in the Kaisersaal of the (former royal) residence in Munich. There
is probably no more magnificent hall in all of Bavaria. Around 500 guests were present,
including - as can be seen from the YouTube footage - ex-Federal Finance Minister Theo
Waigel, Bavaria's incumbent Prime Minister Horst Seehofer and many other well-known
German politicians.

Fig. 2: The Star, October 29, 2014

 Fig. 3: DER SPIEGEL, November 24, 2014

In front of this select audience and in front of the running camera, Gorbachev spoke verbatim
and unequivocally three times about an imminent Third World War:

It's good that the [Berlin] Wall is gone, but dividing lines are emerging again. And if there's anything to worry about
- which is what current politicians should be concerned about [...], under no circumstances allow a war, under no
circumstances allow a new confrontation.
I thought [that] our politicians in Russia were reacting too sharply to missile defence in Europe [...] but now I'm
starting to ask myself, what's all this about? The missile defence is intended as a defence against Russia.
Everything else is just talk, or a smokescreen to cover up the truth.
And as a result, the Russian government has said: "We station [...] defensive weapons here and there, and we are
ready to use weapons that will ensure our security." And what does that mean? - Third World War. That means
World War III. And if Russia and the US get back at each other, it will be World War III. This will not be limited to a
5
local war.

Covering the award ceremony in the Kaisersaal a day later, virtually none of our opinion-
leading media published Gorbachev's absolutely unequivocal warning of a Third World War.
When I searched the Internet, I only came across a very brief note at the end of an article on
the award ceremony on Merkur-Online. It is downright outrageous how the sharpness of
Gorbachev's words is played down in the article by using the word "nebulous":

In his speech, Gorbachev does not go into the conditions in his Russian homeland, which drove tens of thousands
onto the streets of Moscow at the same time as the Munich ceremony. Instead, in view of the dispute over NATO
missile defence, he warns somewhat vaguely of new military conflicts: "We are already in an arms race again,"
6
says Gorbachev and even warned of a Third World War.

Gorbachev's warning*, for example on page one of the Bild newspaper, would certainly have
increased its circulation enormously and caused a huge stir. No question. So how could one
explain the silence of our media in the case of Gorbachev's urgent warning?
*At the beginning of 2015, Gorbachev again warned of a world war, namely in Der Spiegel (January 3, 10, 2015,
page 96), headline: »Anything can blow up in our faces«. Abstract:
Spiegel: Do you think there could be another big war in Europe?
Gorbachev: You shouldn't even think about that. Such a war today would probably inevitably lead to a nuclear
war. However, the statements on both sides and the propaganda make me fear bad things. If someone loses their
nerve in the face of this heated mood, we won't survive the next few years.
Spiegel: Aren't you exaggerating a bit?
Gorbachev: I don't say something like that lightly. I am a man of conscience. But it is like that. I'm really worried.

Ultimately, I have to speculate here too. Apparently the German political elite took Gorbachev's
warning - as well as corresponding warnings from other Russian politicians - mainly as a
Russian propaganda move; as an attempt to drive a wedge between the people of Germany
and the US government. Since the German political class knows that the "simple" people
would fall for the tricks of the Russians and would be afraid of a third world war in no time at
all, they prefer to keep silent about the world war warnings from competent Russian mouths.

But even if Russia actually wanted to drive a wedge between the USA and Germany by stirring
up fear of war, such massive paternalism of German voters through widespread silence is no
longer compatible with basic democratic principles. After all, it would be a matter of life and
death for millions of people - at least from the point of view of ordinary citizens. In addition, the
US is effectively driving a wedge between the German people and the US government by
spying on our emails on a daily basis.

In any case, the German political class prevents a public discussion about who is more likely
to be trusted: the USA or Russia?

Of course, such backgrounds are simply annoying for many citizens, and some like to believe
that Helmut Schmidt and Mikhail Gorbachev would overreact due to their age (born in 1918
and 1931) and "paint the devil on the wall". But Schmidt and Gorbachev are not isolated cases.
Therefore, the warnings of other celebrities are added:

On September 16, 2014, the Internet service NeoPresse.com wrote:

Pope Francis: "We may soon be in World War III"
Pope Francis [...] used his speech at a commemoration ceremony for the outbreak of the First World War to warn
of the horrors of war. Francis spoke of a "Third World War in sections" that is already being fought.

The Pope is of course always very diplomatic and does not name either horse or rider. The
NeoPresse a few lines further:
His warnings coincide with his statements on arms deals, imperialism and capitalism. "For the system to survive,
wars must be fought, as the great empires [i.e. the USA?] have always done," Francis said in an interview with the
Spanish newspaper La Vanguardia a few weeks ago. “The world's leading economies repaired their balance sheets
by producing and selling arms. They sacrificed man to the idol of money. Seeing photos of malnourished children
from different parts of the world makes you scratch your head. You don't understand that," said the Pope. “The
economic system should be at the service of man. But we made money the focus, money as God.«
The Austrian Kronenzeitung wrote on September 13, 2014:
Pope Francis: 'Third World War Underway'
Pope Francis warned against the “madness of war” at his mass at the Fogliano Redipuglia World War II memorial
in Friuli on Saturday. [...] A "Third World War" with various parallel conflicts is currently underway, causing
destruction and death, according to Francis.

The Luxembourg prime minister and then head of the Eurogroup, Jean-Claude Juncker, was
the next to warn. On January 7, 2013, Juncker warned the Luxembourg press of the danger
of war in Europe at the New Year's reception. Two weeks later, as planned, he resigned from
the position of head of the Eurogroup, an ideal time to address explosive issues. You are still
in office and have everyone's attention, but you have nothing more to fear. Jean-Claude
Juncker told the assembled Luxembourg press:
The year 2013 could be a pre-war year like 1913, when all people believed in peace before the war came.7

Juncker ultimately hid his warning in a nebulous context. But fog or not, everyone knows that
in 1914 the First World War broke out.
Let's see other celebrities' warnings. On November 23, 2011 the then Russian President
Medvedev gave a televised address 8 to the Russian people in which he complained about
what he saw as anti-Russian policies in the West. He repeatedly emphasised that Russia was
still willing to engage in fair negotiations with the West. Nevertheless, an essential part of his
speech already consisted of a list of military countermeasures by Russia that would now be
initiated. Mind you: in 2011 - not 2014! In terms of style, the speech was clearly a psychological
preparation of the Russian people for a possible impending war with the West.

At the beginning of the speech, Medvedev addresses the NATO missile defence system,
which Russia has felt threatened by for several years. This missile defence system, when
completed, should be able to shoot down all Russian nuclear missiles before they reach NATO
territory. NATO could then attack Russia with nuclear missiles without having to fear a
counterattack. It would be essentially as if Russia had no nuclear weapons at all.

Medvedev also criticises Barack Obama's initiative to expand this system in Eastern Europe.
Medvedev mentions recent attempts by Russia to negotiate an agreement with the US that
satisfies both sides, but laments the failure of such an agreement to materialise. Instead of
even listening to the Russian proposals, NATO would only claim that the NATO plans are not
directed against Russia and - according to Medvedev:

... there would be no cause for concern. That is the position of the executive branch, but MPs from some [Western]
countries openly say that the whole system is anti-Russian.

You have to know that the West - both NATO and the Western mass media - have been
repeating themselves for many years, like a mantra, that the system is only aimed at possible
rocket attacks by the »rogue states« Iran and North Korea. A look at the globe is enough to
see the whole hypocrisy.
Accordingly, there is an interview on YouTube in which Vladimir Putin downright laughs at a
Western journalist when he again cites the rogue state justification for the missile defence
system.
And on June 3, 2014, during a visit to Poland after the outbreak of the Ukraine crisis, even US
President Barack Obama told Polish President Bronislaw Komorowski in front of the camera -
to calm the Poles, so to speak - that the missile defence system was making good progress.
At the beginning of the Warsaw press conference with Komorowski, Barack Obama first
welcomed his host, invoked friendship between the USA and Poland and recalled the
obligation to provide assistance to Poland, which the USA has under Article 5 of the NATO
treaty. And the first thing - really the very first thing - that Obama said after the introductory
diplomatic phrases was:

We are on track with our missile defence program, including interceptive sites here in Poland. - We are [well] on
track with our anti-missile program, including the interceptor stations here in Poland.9

From the Russian point of view, this public statement by the US President means that not only
the missile system itself and the audacity with which the USA has been taking itself out for
years is a massive provocation by Russia, but also the callousness with which the USA
recently casually admitted in public that for fooling the Russians (and the world public) all these
years. When I heard Obama's statement, I figured there must be an outcry. But nothing.
Nobody gets upset with us today when the world public and the local population of Washington
and NATO have been demonstrably lied to for years!

Medvedev went on to say that NATO's full anti-missile system could be operational in "let's
say five, six or eight years," starting in 2016. Medvedev continued in his televised address to
the Russian people:
...ultimately that would result in US missiles and military units being stationed near Russia's border and in
surrounding waters. […] The European missile defence program is already underway and, regrettably, work on it
is progressing rapidly in Poland, Turkey, Romania and Spain. We are faced with a fait accompli. [...] There is still
time to reach an agreement. [...] But when we are asked to "cooperate" or even to act against our own interests, it
becomes difficult to find common ground. Then we would be forced to react differently. We will decide our course
of action according to the actual developments of events at each stage of the implementation of the missile defence
program. In this context, I have made the following decisions:
First, I order the Ministry of Defense to immediately activate the radar system at Kaliningrad [formerly Koenigsberg,
East Prussia] for early warning of missile attacks.
Secondly, as a priority measure, the protection of Russia's strategic nuclear weapons reinforced [...].10

Strategic nuclear weapons are usually nuclear missiles with a particularly high explosive
power, i.e. those weapons with which entire cities of over a million inhabitants can be wiped
out in one fell swoop.
Third, the new strategic ballistic missiles commissioned [by the Russian military] will be equipped with advanced
missile defence penetration systems and new, highly effective warheads.
Fourth, I have instructed the armed forces to draw up measures to disable, if necessary, the data and guidance
systems of missile defence systems [...].
Fifth, should the above measures prove insufficient, the Russian Federation will deploy advanced offensive
weapons in the west and south of the country, guaranteeing our ability to disable any component of the US
missile defence system in Europe . One step in this process will be the deployment of Iskander missiles in the
Kaliningrad area.11

Iskander missiles can be equipped with nuclear weapons, they have an explosive power of up
to 200 kT (-15 times Hiroshima) and a range of up to 400 km. The hit accuracy is up to ten
metres. These missiles evade the target approach by a random zigzag course, have jammers
(against the radar-based NATO defence) and drop decoys. It would not be entirely clear
whether the Iskander rockets in Kaliningrad could already reach Berlin-Mitte, maybe only
Eberswalde or only Schwedt an der Oder.
Furthermore, if the situation still does not develop in favour of Russia [which from the Russian point of view has
definitely been the case since the end of 2011], we reserve the right to discontinue further disarmament and arms
control measures. [...] But let me emphasise that we are not refusing continued dialogue with the US and NATO to
negotiate missile defence and practical cooperation in this area. We are ready.12

Imagine Angela Merkel giving a speech to the German people after the news at 8:15 p.m. The
Germans were sitting pale in front of the screens.
The next source on the subject of an impending Third World War is also a close associate of
Vladimir Putin: Sergei Glazjev. This is Putin's economic adviser for "Eurasian economic
integration". In a television panel discussion on June 10, 2014, Sergei Glazjev said:

Ukraine is currently occupied by the US and its mercenaries, who are using the Ukrainian puppet regime to
indoctrinate, mobilise and incite the entire Ukrainian population against Russia. The US first wants to organise a
civil war in Ukraine, and then go on to the world war. And they want to involve all of Europe and Eurasia,13

Mind you - also in a discussion on Russian TV! Gorbachev, Medvedev and Glazjev - and one
could add other top politicians - show that the problem is not Vladimir Putin. The problem is
large sections of Russia's political elite. And even that is only half the truth, because at least
for the moment the majority of the Russian people still stand behind their political elite.

Let us now turn again to warners from the western world. On September 23, 2014, the internet
service FinanzenlOO reported on a statement by Nobel Prize winner Robert Shiller:
Nobel laureate Robert Shiller: "My biggest concern is war."
Robert Shiller is one of the most respected financial experts in the world. Nobel laureate Robert Shiller predicted
the crash of the new economy and the real estate bubble. Now he fears a war between Russia and the West - for
economic reasons. [...] But even if there were no war, Schiller sees difficult times ahead for Europe. The fears for
the future fueled by the conflict in Ukraine stifled consumption on the continent. He even sees parallels in this to
the 1930s, when the hope for economic improvement also dwindled because the recovery after the Great
Depression was just as sluggish as it is today after the financial crisis.14

The next source is also a Nobel Prize winner: On September 1, 2014, the Bild newspaper
carried an interview with the Nobel Peace Prize winner and former Director General of the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Mohammed El Baradei under the headline
"Europe must not sink into war!" In the interview itself, the conflict in Ukraine was only touched
upon briefly, and when asked whether he was afraid of a war in Europe, El Baradei replied:

I can't and don't want to imagine that. [...] No, that must not happen. [...] Sanctions and counter-sanctions don't
help, both sides have to talk. [...] We shouldn't even start mentioning nuclear weapons in the context of Europe and
15
Russia at all. [But that has long been the case, see Medvedev above.] Only dialogue can help here.

Overall, El Baradei's concern in the article was not so much the acute threat of war as the
West's crisis management. The only question is where do you end up when poor crisis
management fails?

The German Nobel Prize winner for literature, Günter Grass, gave a much more dramatic
assessment of the situation. On November 4, 2014, in front of hundreds of spectators at the
Literary Salon in the completely overcrowded Audimax of the University of Hanover, Grass
said:
16
To put it bluntly, we are now in the Third World War. The theatres of war multiply insidiously.
The explicit reference to the conflict with Russia is missing. In April 2012, however, Grass had
already warned of a Third World War. The occasion at the time was the violent reaction to his
criticism of Israel. At the time, a number of online media carried the headline »Grass defends
itself and warns of World War III«. The following sentence was printed several times:
If Israel attacks Iran's nuclear facilities, presumably with conventional bombs and warheads, it could lead to World
War III, Grass warned.17

It is probably obvious that a purely Israeli-Islamic conflict would not initially be a world war.
Even if the US were to stand with Israel, this would still not be a world war. But an attack on
Iran would mean crossing a red line for Russia. In other words, the conflict between the USA
and Russia, which was simmering in the background as early as 2012, is decisive.

On September 23, 2014, The Epoch Times.de reported:

Nicaragua's President: "The Pope is right: World War III has already begun."

The reason for President Ortega's statement was the Gaza war of 2014, which would hardly
have been possible in this form without Israel's backing from the USA.

Finally, Egon Bahr (b. 1922), who made a significant contribution to the policy of detente
towards Moscow in the 1970s under Chancellor Willy Brandt, should also be quoted. In
December 2013 he attended a high school in Heidelberg and shocked the students in a class
there with a war prophecy. The Rhein-Neckar-Zeitung wrote under the headline:
Bahr shocks the students: "There can be war"
"Hitler means war," his father said to him in 1933. Growing up, he didn't believe that. And so it is again: "I, an old
man, tell you that we live in a pre-war time."18

So much for a series of warners who, because of their reputation and their function, still
manage to get their say in the media on their own and who do not fail because of the - to put
it mildly - reticence of our media.

Otherwise, an atmosphere has developed, especially in Germany, in which hardly anyone

dares to name the danger of a Third World War. Every now and then this atmosphere can be
clearly felt, namely when someone still risks opening their mouth. Ideal times for this are
television shows with top-class guests and with a larger audience. Here is an example from
the well-known German television talk show Günther Jauch.

On November 16, 2014, an approximately half-hour interview with Vladimir Putin was
broadcast at the beginning of the program, in which Putin had enough time to present Russia's
perspective on the current conflict. After the interview, a discussion took place in which i.a. the
Federal Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen took part. This program was watched by six
million viewers, and the ARD received - according to Günther Jauch later - "thousands of
letters". Der Spiegel wrote that the program "thanks to the Putin interview was such a hit with
ratings that further discussion was almost inevitable."19

The feedback on the Putin interview was so great that a week later Vladimir Putin again made
the subject of the Günther Jauch broadcast. Title of the program on November 23: "Answer to
Putin: Give in or show toughness?". The former Prime Minister of Brandenburg, Matthias
Platzeck, who had attracted media displeasure a few days earlier, was invited to the show. He
had suggested accepting the annexation of Crimea, substantially defusing the crisis with
Russia with this concession, and thus finding a way back to a real partnership with Russia.

Shortly after the start of the show, Matthias Platzeck said:

And of course it has long been about war and peace [great war in Europe = Third World War]. We're not talking
about making the world more beautiful, that's a tense situation in Europe, which fortunately we haven't had on our
continent for at least 25 years. A war of monologues won't help us, and demonization won't help us either.

*I know that there is a debate about whether this is an annexation or a secession, and it is clear that the
interpretation in terms of the annexation is now the central basis of all Russia policy. I write of annexation not
because I see it that way, but because it has become "common parlance"...

Not correct! Not only does demonization not help us, it also makes peaceful settlement more
and more impossible. If there are forces that actually want a war - see Gorbachev, then for
these forces a demonization of Russia and Putin would even be a decisive, unavoidable move
on the way to war. Anyone who wants war must not negotiate seriously. He has to stand up
and announce to the electorate: “We would like to negotiate. But you can see for yourself: you
can't trust the others. What else is there to negotiate?”

Ultimately, it is not decisive that at some point one announces that negotiations are "pointless".
It's done in a minute. No, what takes more effort, takes longer, and involves a whole circle of
public figures is drumming into the people over and over, on a more emotional level, that
Putin's Russia cannot be trusted. Distrust must be sown. Again and again. Because feelings
are stronger than arguments. And if the distrust is at some point great enough, the people will
also accept without complaint that there are no more real attempts at negotiation.

For me, the most interesting thing about Matthias Platzeck's words is "... let's not talk about
making the world more beautiful," the meaning of which is even better understood in the
television recording with sound and image.20
Germany's political class - among politicians and media makers - is well aware of the actual
danger, but hides it from the public. Why? So that the Germans' fear of war doesn't play into
Putin's hands?

This method of concealing and hiding the actual danger then also addressed the former long-
time ARD Moscow correspondent Gabriele Krone-Schmalz, who was also invited to Günther
Jauch:
... and if it's now being said again and again [by politicians and media makers] that there won't be a hot war, I don't
really believe it [Wolf Biermann's interjection: "Neither do I!"], because if you're so sure is that you will definitely not
get into a hot war, then of course you are much more willing to verbally arm yourself and keep turning the spiral.
All of this is not funny.

It should be clear how essential and absolutely fundamental it is to suggest that the worst will
never happen, the great war with Russia. It is precisely this belief that lulls, dulls and paralyses
the populace.

Matthias Platzeck, who is often in Russia and knows the atmosphere there, said later:
I think it's [now] a more difficult situation than the Cold War we know, [Krone-Schmalz agrees with "Hmm"] because
- I experienced it in the 70's and 80's in what was then the Soviet Union, that there Although the leadership was
out for confrontation, the majority of the people were heading west, I'll say it now. It's more difficult today, because
a large part of the [Russian] people also support the President. That makes the solution more difficult. [...] I still
don't fully understand what should come at the end of a sanctions policy - if we continue to escalate it.

Interesting: Some German politicians who know the situation in Russia from their own
experience consider the situation to be more dangerous than in the past Cold War. Others,
however, even deny that the current situation can develop into a new Cold War (see US
Secretary of State John Kerry, page 68). How does that fit together?

In short: If you observe the situation in Europe as a whole, you get the uneasy feeling that a
large part of the political class in Europe and Germany has long since recognized what is really
at stake.

And you get an even worse feeling when you see how the population is being manipulated
into hiding this uneasy feeling and keeping quiet about it. This also includes such "tricks" as
that of moderator Günther Jauch, who simply changes the subject after every really critical
statement or turns to another guest. Motto: “Everyone is allowed to say their opinion here. But
whether we agree to it is not his decision.”

Practically all of the warners from Europe and especially Germany quoted so far are
performing a kind of balancing act, because they know very well: the more clearly they warn
of a Third World War, the more likely they are to block future access to the media. Anyone
who warns too clearly has appeared in the media for the last time. Unless he's as prominent
as Gorbachev.

Plain text can only be afforded by those who are already cut by the established media. One of
these is the German journalist and management consultant Christoph R. Hörstel (*1956).
Hörstel is one of those top journalists who used to work for the established media (ARD). From
1985 he was a special correspondent (Middle East) for ARD television, later news presenter
of the program MDR-Aktuell and senior editor. In 1999 he moved to Siemens mobile as Head
of Communications, in 2001 he founded the government and management consultancy
Hörstel Networks and was then also a coach for ISAF" executives of the Bundeswehr and
guest lecturer at the Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy in Hamburg. During the
fall of the Taliban in 2001 Hörstel was the only western journalist in Kabul.

* ISAF = International Security Assistance Force (Afghanistan 2001)

So much for Christoph Hörstel's professional qualifications. It's cut by mainstream media, so
it communicates over the internet. There he said the following in an interview on March 11,
2014:
... and apparently he [Putin] has upgraded enough, one can only say, that he can dare to take this step [tough
stance in the Ukraine crisis]. It is absolutely clear that NATO is not in a position to start a war with Russia right
now. You have to see that clearly, we are not able to do that at the moment. Putin analysed this very well. With
all measures he remains below what he could do. And we would be amazed at how determined Putin is if we
continue like this, NATO-style. That's not a question at all. [...] In Russia, NATO is igniting the fire that Europe
could burn down. [...] But that shouldn't hide the fact that he [Putin] could still exploit his opportunities, and then
we can say goodbye to Europe.21

When it gets serious, I have to lie!

Of course, no one can say whether we will experience what is foretold by traditional European
prophecy. But history teaches us that we are lied to about the future by emperors, kings,
chancellors, heads of state etc. when things get serious. It is utterly illusory and downright
naïve to assume that we would be "warned in good time" in the event of a real major war. It
may be that a few days or weeks beforehand we are made to feel or suspect that something
is actually on the way. But there will be no official announcements. The vast majority of
politicians - whether out of stupidity or a lack of information - would hope to the last that the
worst could still be prevented.

And of course the media would be extremely careful not to say anything wrong and trigger
millions of refugees in Germany, for example. Attempts will even be made to stop hoarding,
because one out of ten people who stock up on food "because of the Russians" would have
the idea that it might be better to go to the more distant west. Suddenly people stopped coming
to work, doctors' surgeries remained closed, trains stopped running because there were no
railway staff, etc.

It is therefore essential that one understands - indeed internalizes - that if the worst comes to
the worst, there will not only be no warning, but that politicians and the media will try relatively
far in advance to prevent panic or to prevent the Citizens come up with »stupid ideas«.

Only very rarely does a prominent politician step out of line and provide an insight into the craft
of voter manipulation: it was Luxembourg Prime Minister and head of the Eurogroup Jean-
Claude Juncker who admitted on April 20, 2011 at a public event in Brussels that he lies and
has to lie when things get serious. The topic of the event was the euro crisis. A listener had
accused Juncker of a certain undemocratic attitude in dealing with the crisis. Juncker replied
in a relaxed, rather casual atmosphere:
I'm in favor of secret debates among some officials. [...] I have to lie.
I am [although] a Christian Democrat and Catholic [audience merriment and laughter]... when things get serious I
have to lie.22

Juncker's testimony was quite a hit. Has there ever been a prominent sitting politician in
Europe who publicly admits to lying to the people without being caught?... Yet, after Juncker's
remarkable admission, almost three weeks had to pass before the major German media
started addressing the incident. Der Spiegel wrote on May 9th:
From him [Juncker] the news agency dapd reported the sentence: »When things get serious, you have to lie.«
Other major media also didn't seem to want to believe what was going on about the head of
the Eurogroup at first. The day after Der Spiegel, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung wrote
that Juncker "should" have said this sentence. "Should have said," it said then for another five
days in the Süddeutsche Zeitung.

Wirtschaftswoche wrote on May 26 that Juncker "should" have said so. However,
Wirtschaftswoche then completely overlooked the fact that film recordings of Juncker's
statements could already be admired on May 18 in the ARD program Hart aber fair. Topic of
the program: "Does our euro end up in the bin?"

Somewhat irritated, the thoughtful media consumer asks at some point where the film
recordings with Juncker's statement had gone the whole time? ... The Brussels meeting was
organised by the European Movement. Our journalists would only have had to ask there. The
European Movement itself uploaded the speeches of the three main guests - Juncker, Pat Cox
(Irish MEP) and Emilia Müller (Bavarian State Secretary) to YouTube just 24 hours after the
event; however, not Junker's statement, which referred to a question from the audience.

But the sequence with Juncker's lying testimony was uploaded to YouTube just one day after
the event, by one since 2000 in Brussels-based group of journalists called EUObserver23

Fig. 4: Screenshot of the EUObserver page from 04/21/2011

On the EUObserver recordings, one can hear very clearly that Juncker says twice that he has
to lie ("I have to lie"), and not that "one" has to lie, as all the other media reported. The news
agency dapd had evidently not "misheard" but - for whatever reason - had taken Juncker out
of the line of fire, contrary to the facts.

The camera position of EUObserver also shows that hart but fair had accessed the footage of
another camera team, which was about 3 metres to the right in a slightly elevated position.
Since the footage released by the European Movement was taken from a third position, at
least three cameras appear to have been on site. So there was plenty of film footage
(European Movement, EUObserver, Hart aberfair).

In plain language: The editors of Spiegel, FAZ, Süddeutscher and Wirtschaftswoche could
have clarified 24 hours after the event what Eurogroup boss Juncker really said. Editors are
permanently online anyway, so it would have been a matter of a few minutes to look it up on
Youtube.

What follows? Of course, the editors looked it up on the Internet. And of course the
journalists and editors exchanged ideas about it: "Tell me, have you noticed that too? Man!
That's great."

Just. Only - this hammer fell, but it didn't hit the ground (at first). As the? Someone
intervened: the editorial management at Spiegel, Süddeutsche, etc. So far we can do without
any conspiracy theories. This is pure logic. It's a hot topic, so it's proposed in the editorial
meeting. And then it was said: "Yes - but ..."

Have the editors-in-chief agreed with each other in this specific case? I do not think so. Then
they would have to agree on quite a few topics and exchange emails with their fellow editors
for half the day. That would be way too time consuming. It would make more sense to meet
face-to-face from time to time and make sure we're all pulling in the same direction.

In this specific case, however, one cannot speak of a real synchronisation, after all, the
Focus reported the incident on the same day as the Spiegel and presented the incident as a
fact.

Coming back to Jean-Claude Juncker: Of course it is obvious that a politician cannot say
everything in an extremely tense financial situation where everything is hanging by a thread.
But in the event of a military threat, where Germany would be virtually unable to defend itself
on its own soil - keyword ailing Bundeswehr - exactly the same situation would have to be
expected. It doesn't matter whether the politicians fear queues in front of the bank counters
or queues of fleeing citizens on the motorways. Politicians are afraid of an uncontrollable
population. Juncker says it clearly: When things get serious, they lie!

Improbable or not, if Russia ever attacked, the population would not be warned. Presumably,
the population would begin to sense it days or weeks beforehand. But the fear of panic
would be so great in politics and the mass media that disturbing reports would be blocked
well in advance, and anything that could not be hushed up would be played down or passed
on with a delay. Or you create artificial media excitement with distracting topics.

Presumably, as in the case of Juncker, there would be no really uniform media policy, and
one or the other German local ruler could break out of the convoy of disconcerting secrecy
and pursue their own strategy. This would be quite typical if the pressure on the members of
the political class increased massively and a dissolution process began behind the scenes,
along the lines of "save yourself if you can".
In addition, the Jean-Claude Juncker affair is not only exemplary of the behaviour of
politicians and the media, but it also shows quite well that we - the citizens - often have the
opportunity nowadays to get to the bottom of things and find out the actual facts. Especially
in the age of the internet. You don't need a special degree for that, and you don't have to
spend a whole weekend trying to get there. You just have to want it.

So when things get serious, we definitely need an alternative to the »government official«
future forecast or no forecast. The probability that we will be lied to in a highly explosive
phase is well known and is so high that afterwards we could even be coldly reproached:
»You should have known, after all, there were enough warnings. It was clear that you
couldn't shout that out loud!«. And maybe that's what Jean-Claude Juncker actually wanted
to say. Finally, on January 7, 2013, he also issued this strange warning of a Third World
War.

The Prophesied Scenario for Europe

A luxury liner with a subprime crew

To say it straight away: If you - dear reader - are looking for an excuse to declare traditional
European prophecy nonsense, this excuse is presented to you here on a silver platter:
According to European prophecy, there will be a sudden attack "at some point". Russia's
coming to Western Europe. One or the other reader will now actually consider this horror
scenario to be possible, but the real surprise would be that after the invasion of Russia and
the imminent victory over the Red Army in Europe, the monarchy is to be reintroduced in many
places.

Almost everyone thinks this is complete nonsense. But just imagine - just for fun - what would
happen to our beautiful political system if our politicians got so thoroughly wrong and
miscalculated at some point, and kept making all sorts of protestations in front of the camera,
that the people are losing their trust in these politicians.

Imagine that our democracy is a wonderful, state-of-the-art luxury liner, but the crew of the
liner is just a haphazard, corrupt, and incompetent bunch. Something like that happens. In
Latin America, and occasionally also in Italy and Greece.

Democracy is ultimately based on trust in the political class. Democracy is a matter of trust,
and the "people" want and need a government they trust.

When push comes to shove, the people do not opt for democracy, but for a government they
trust, if necessary non-democratically. If people were given the choice between trust and
democracy, they would choose trust, not democracy!
Our problem is that we habitually equate trust in democracy with trust in the political class. We
don't keep an eye on the politicians enough, and that harbours the danger that if the politicians
fail completely, we will also say goodbye to democracy - throw the baby out with the bathwater.
And basically, that is exactly what European prophecy foretells.

At the moment, we simply cannot imagine a situation in which trust in our people's
representatives will be shaken so badly that we will mistrust even those people's
representatives who have not yet been elected, because we, the politicians in the third and
fourth row, are also complicit would suspect and would accuse of inaction.

That would not necessarily be the end of democracy. It may be that, like in a tree nursery, a
new political class is allowed to grow from the sapling stage. But that would take time. And
what do you do until then?

In a way, traditional European prophecy, with its prediction of the reintroduction of the
monarchy, is an attack on our social system cultivated in post-1945 West Germany.

Fig. 5: Source: GfK / Society for Consumer Research

We believe in democracy.
But behind that is faith in the politicians, the belief in the righteousness of some 10,000 people
in this country, the belief that they will not fool us too much.
Of course we have never trusted the politicians that completely, but we at least believe - and
we are really convinced of that - that they will never fool us so much that it amounts to a
betrayal of the people, a betrayal of us, the citizens, voters and taxpayers.
However, betrayal occurs precisely in stressful situations, when one is under a lot of pressure.
But we democratic citizens believe that our politicians will still represent the interests of the
people even if they come under massive pressure as a group and also personally.

In the Holy Realm of Democracy

So what if there comes a crisis that Berlin and Brussels can no longer control and which
exposes practically all those in positions of responsibility as actors who do not know what they
are doing, who have no real plan and no real power, and who are permanently backing the
wrong horse. So what?
In the Nazi era, such questions and considerations fell under the term defeatism - stirring up
doubts about (final) victory - for which one was summarily shot or hanged in the last years of
the war.
The seeming ridiculousness of the prophecy of coming monarchies in Europe is directly
related to our belief in democracy, or confidence that our politicians will not make catastrophic
mistakes when faced with massive pressure.

But are today's politicians battle-proved in this sense? After 1945 it was our politicians in the
truest sense of the word. Nobody could chase this war generation into the boxing horn so
quickly. But today? Don't many of our politicians, and especially the younger ones, remind you
of some baby faces who only worked their way up the ranks in a civil service?

Losing faith in democracy? "Oh no. We won't. Never!« is the oath of our unbreakable fidelity,
with which we reaffirm the holy covenant.

So again: What happens when the people lose faith in democracy? And is it only in a
transitional phase of, say, a year? After all, a people can lose faith in everything: in the
"Fuhrer", the victory of actually existing socialism, the fatherland, world peace, Barack Obama,
eternal prosperity, God and mankind, and yes - at some point and at the very end too in
ourselves. If we have already lost our millennia-old faith in God and the gods, our faith in
Germany, eternal prosperity and the American dream, why on earth can't we also lose faith in
democracy? Do we really believe in democracy? Or are we just afraid of being plunged into
total, final lack of faith? Is "democracy" just the name of the rope on which we are dangling
over the yawning abyss?
All it takes for a "fall of faith" in matters of democracy are two things: first, the absence of a
real opposition and, second, a crisis that can only be resolved if there is a real opposition.
But if every political party backs the wrong horse and fails catastrophically in the crisis, our
beautiful democracy in Berlin will be over.
So while we keep patting ourselves on the back and looking at Russia, China, etc. with
contempt, the truth may be that we already are in the process of betraying and ruining our own
democracy, both together: politicians and the people. Some make mistakes, others look away
indifferently.
So it's a matter of faith. A great many of those who laugh at the prophecy of the return of the
monarchy simply believe that neither ox nor donkey will stop democracy in its course, or, to
get to the point, they believe in the millennium of democracy that has now dawned. That
sounds ugly. But if you think about it for a few minutes, you might agree. And once you get
the hang of the millennium of democracy, you'll hear a faint crackling and splintering coming
from somewhere. Allegedly.

The Scenario at a Glance

Before the restoration of the monarchy, according to European prophecy, there would be some
catastrophes that would shake up our society mightily. This would essentially initially be an
economic collapse, then Europe-wide unrest with civil war-like conditions and then in
midsummer a sudden attack and breakthrough by Russia to the west, which in Germany would
essentially only reach the Rhine and the Danube. First, the war would be fairly short, and
second, Europe would be essentially nuclear-free. A nuclear war in the true sense would not
take place in Europe. Third, Russia would lose this war. So much for the "good" news.

The bad news would be that about three months after the start of the war there would be a
practically worldwide natural disaster of unprecedented proportions, which would far exceed
the war in its effects; a cosmic event, but not an impact. Practical precautions against this
natural disaster should ultimately be quite simple (see page 299), but it is to be feared that
official bodies and the mass media will not give any advance warnings of this disaster.

This natural disaster is described in more detail later in the book. The main focus of the book,
however, are clearly the omens of war. Enough readers will have trouble factoring in this war.
So it would make little sense to deal too much with the "final" natural catastrophe here, as long
as war is relegated to the realm of absurd fantasies.

*I describe the scenario in much more detail than in this book in my books Prophecies on the future of Europe &
real events (2007), Alois Irlmaier - a man says what he sees (2009), and Prophecies - old news in new times (
2001).

The Scenario in Detail

According to the sources I know, it is not possible to say exactly when the economic crash will
come. However, there are enough well-documented forecasts that clearly show that some
seers did in fact foresee this economic crisis, and there are also isolated mentions of economic
events that have become reality in recent years. This means that there is no general or
nebulous talk of any economic crisis, but specific details are given. The current crisis in Europe
can very well be seen in the "old" European prophecies.

It is difficult to say whether the riots that followed are solely or primarily a reaction to economic
developments, or whether other factors are also involved. It is also unclear how much time
would pass between an economic collapse (euro collapse, bank crash, etc.) and the outbreak
of unrest.

What is clear, however, is that the unrest in Europe erupted at relatively the same time, with
Paris and Rome receiving particular attention in the sources. The exact duration of these riots
is difficult to pinpoint, but they are likely to be quite brief, as several sources suggest that they
erupted just before the Russian attack. Probably just a few weeks before.

This Russian attack, in turn - the sources are remarkably clear and, in my opinion, particularly
reliable - would take place in midsummer at the grain harvest. This means that an outbreak or
escalation of civil war-like unrest should not be expected until spring/summer.

The Russian attack would be immediately preceded by a new Middle East crisis, in which
there are also signs of an armed conflict by the West. The new Middle East war itself would
break out just days before the war in Europe.
The actual Russian attack is predicted, with remarkable consistency, to be very surprising.
However, this element of surprise is only likely to relate to the large majority of the population.
In fact, as there has been since 2014, there should be a wealth of political or even military
evidence that relations between East and West are completely out of whack.

Russia would launch a surprise attack to secure flanks in Scandinavia and Turkey, and then
advance in the centre against Germany and Italy. Within a few days the Russians would be
with their forces on the Rhine. Important Rhine bridges would be brought under control by
airborne troops within a few hours, if not within a single hour, of the start of the attack. If
the Russians had arrived on the Rhine, the USA would send out a gigantic armada of aircraft
from the Arab region - presumably stealth drones (see page 263) - which would make any
replenishment impossible for the Russians through a special chemical weapons deployment
between Prague and the Baltic Sea. From then on the withdrawal of the Russians from
southern Germany and the Netherlands would begin, and it would come on the northern and
north-east edge of the Ruhr area and partly in the Cologne area to a gigantic battle. After that,
the war in Central Europe would be largely over.
The Russians, for their part, would still try to sink the US supplies, which are now being sent
across the Atlantic by sea, with a gigantic tsunami, which they would trigger with an atomic
bomb in the North Atlantic near the North Sea. But that would no longer turn the tide of war.
However, coastal flooding would occur in Norway, Scotland, England, France, Holland,
Germany and Denmark'.

Around the end of October/beginning of November, a celestial body would then appear over
the embattled Europe, close to the time of the final defeat of Russia, followed by a gigantic
cloud of dust that would more or less fog and darken the whole world and make survival in the
open air impossible. In the house, however, one should be safe. Apparently the problem is
actually the dust and not some poison gas. Unlike toxic gases, dust can be kept out to a large
extent by closing windows and doors.

Then there will be three days of darkness. During these three days there are said to be
earthquakes in many regions, and relatively many sources point to a geographic pole shift at
this time. This means that afterwards the sun would no longer rise in the east as usual, and
the climatic zones would also be shifted by a few 100 kilometres, although this would be to
the advantage in the case of Central Europe. It would be warmer.

There is a lot of, often very detailed material from very credible sources about this scenario of
the three-day eclipse, which at first glance is difficult to believe. The term »three-day
darkness« has become established in literature.

After the darkness, the worst should be over. A famine could still be expected, but if the
prophecies are to be believed, the consequences would not be nearly as bad as the war and
the darkness. It is clear that there must be a famine, after all, the supply of food would suddenly
collapse, and almost nobody would have made provisions for this emergency.

The climate in Central Europe should then suddenly be significantly warmer. In Bavaria it
should be as warm as in southern Italy. It is predicted for Central Europe that agriculture will
be extremely productive relatively soon after the war, even with two harvests a year.

Monarchies are specifically predicted for the post-war period, e.g. for France, Bavaria,
Austria and Hungary, yes, there is even supposed to be a kind of European emperor give.
Despite the war with Russia, peaceful and lucrative cooperation between Western Europe
and the giant country in the east would result relatively quickly, England (not Scotland and
Wales!) would sink into the sea (probably as a result of the pole shift), the USA would revert
to the status of a regional power, and in the Middle East European troops would finally
ensure order. That means Israel too would be put on the defensive, both militarily and
politically.

*See my book Prophecies, Ancient News in Modern Times (2001) for detailed maps.

The Vatican would suffer a bloodbath in the wake of the unrest in Italy, and in many places
the clergy would be persecuted and killed. Nevertheless, Christianity would experience a great
renaissance. The so-called "fifth dimension jump" of the New Age adherents would prove to
be a mistake. Many New Age believers would turn back to Christianity. However, it is said in
Christian Catholic prophecy of all things that this religious renaissance will not last very long -
perhaps two generations!

After the great war and the great catastrophes, a lot would get better again, but ultimately not
everything. It would not yet be the golden age, even if this is confused again and again. After
a few generations, a true world state would mature, and great problems would arise again in
connection with it.

Let's list who performs poorly overall or partially in this scenario:

• our politicians
• our opinion-forming mass media
• Russia
• England
• USA (as presumed provocateur of the war)
• Israel
• the Catholic Church
• Banking and Insurance (see page 192) • and the New Age

Is there any "socially relevant" group today that does well in the prophesied scenario? No. Not
really. And so we immediately have a plausible explanation for why this topic has so far met
with little sympathy in large parts of society.

Absurdly enough, commercial clairvoyants and astrologers would have to be added to the list
above, since these mainly live from helping people with their "everyday problems". However,
if one believes European prophecy, these everyday problems would become completely
irrelevant, at least temporarily. And the elimination of these problems would mean the
disappearance of business for many of the usual soothsayers and astrologers. After all, they
would have to tell their clients that one day the cloak of history will sweep over them, too, and
that it won't matter what they've just learned from their style consultant or where a particularly
good yoga teacher is.

We remember: The traditional European prophecy is predominantly business-damaging.

But so was Cassandra.

Science and Clairvoyance

Clairvoyance is the ability to perceive simultaneous events in another place or future events.
The scientific term for clairvoyance into the future is precognition.

This seeing into the future is often described by clairvoyants as a kind of film that runs in front
of their eyes. Noises can also be heard and there is sometimes a voice accompanying the
clairvoyant. The content of the visions can appear as real as with normal vision, but
connections can also be represented symbolically. Some psychics have visions for most of
their lives, others only for a limited period of time. Some have visions only involuntarily, others
can see into the future at will.

Is there any scientific evidence that someone actually foresaw the future? This is difficult;
Because theoretically one could always claim that a certain prediction only coincidentally
coincides with a later event. For a generally accepted scientific proof of true clairvoyance, one
would probably need an apparatus with which one can literally see into the brain of a potential
clairvoyant or directly read the individual pixels from the retina that make up the image of a
vision. Such devices do not yet exist.

However, there are scientific experiments that have been used to ensure that a clairvoyant
could not have foreknowledge in any other way. Experiments in which the clairvoyant's
foresight before the event was documented and where there was later significant agreement
with the actual event. Here's an example:

In 1955, on the premises of the Süddeutscher Rundfunk in Stuttgart, an experiment with the
Psychic Gerard Croiset, also from Holland, was performed.24 Gerard Croiset was a well-known
Dutch seer who also worked for the local police, among other things. A lawyer from
Süddeutscher Rundfunk was also present at this attempt.
The experiment went as follows: On February 13, 1955, Gerard Croiset was presented with
the plan of a room with a few rows of seats. G. Croiset had to describe a few people he didn't
know who would sit in some of the seats days later. Croiset's statements were recorded on
tape. Then several people were invited into this room by the above lawyer from Süddeutscher
Rundfunk, who in turn was unaware of Croiset's predictions.

Gerard Croiset's credentials were verified at the event that night, and his scoring rate was
such that it cannot be convincingly explained by chance or lucky guessing. The Bender-
Tenhaeff-Croiset team carried out several such experiments. You can read about all of this in
W.H.C. Tenhaeff's book The Second Sight.
Such parapsychological experiments, if they succeed, are of course interesting. But ultimately
they are not what really interests us. We want to know "what will happen tomorrow," and we
want to know that today! Exactly that doesn't work! Even the best and most benevolent
scientists will not be able to prove that a prediction made today will be fulfilled tomorrow. For
the simple reason that what will be tomorrow cannot be proved until tomorrow.

Basically, we can save ourselves all the test arrangements, scientists and lawyers present.
First, all we need is a secure, credible document of what a (potential) seer saw and what he
reported. We simply need a piece of written paper. And then we need time. And someday we'll
see. It may be that a supposedly genuine prophecy turns out to be false. However, it is also
possible that a prophecy that one considers completely implausible turns out to be correct in
retrospect.
Of course, you can also believe any parapsychologist or would-be parapsychologist who tells
you that no one can see into the future and that all of this is just coincidence and nonsense.
We are only allowing ourselves to be confirmed by a prejudice from a person who calls himself
a parapsychologist and whom we - for whatever reason - believe. We know such a behaviour
pattern from churches, synagogues and mosques. Once in a while, such behaviour is okay.
But at the beginning of the 21st century, a little more intellectual effort is required.

We know from particle physics that scientists sometimes become part of an experiment -
whether they want to or not. And we also know from the history of science that scientific
progress has been hampered time and time again by the limited imagination of scientists. That
means there is a kind of permanent contamination of science by the scientists themselves! -
of course not in all areas, but often precisely in those areas where a kind of qualitative growth
in science is at stake.

Real clairvoyance can only be explained by the fact that the clairvoyant actually sees what will
be. No guesswork, no lucky guess, no extrapolation, and no telepathic tapping of this or that
either. The real clairvoyant - if he actually exists - sees the future. Not a possible or a probable
future, but the actual future. This is real clairvoyance. And that means the future already exists.

And that entails a series of problems: First, the very idea of predestination hurts the human
ego. After all, we are all followers of an ideology called "Triumph of the Will," as the Nazis
once put it so aptly. You could have learned from that. But you don't.

Now it could be argued that predestination applies only to larger groups, peoples, and
humanity as a whole. In this way, the idea of the free will of the individual could still be saved.
But often people are personally offended when only predetermined community destinies are
meant. And of course politicians and people who need a lot of people, even whole crowds of
people, to achieve their goals are offended. To put it simply: the bigger the ego, the greater
the rejection of predetermination or providence - and thus of clairvoyance.

But the real problem with real clairvoyants is something else. Because if a person actually
sees into the future, part of his consciousness must already be in the future. And even if he
received the relevant information from a "ghost" in the future, this very spirit would somehow
have to exist at the same time in the future and the present. This means that our
consciousness must have a level that goes beyond the here and now. We or parts of our
consciousness existed in parallel in different time dimensions - simultaneously in the present
and the future.

If we did, our physical concept of ourselves would implode: we think we have one body that
holds our consciousness, when in fact we have billions of bodies connected by some kind of
thread of consciousness.

In plain language: Real clairvoyance destroys our three-dimensional concept of ourselves on

closer inspection! And it is quite clear that science has difficulties with this.

Worse still, when we co-exist in the present and the future, we move out of any cause-and-
effect frame of reference. We or the clairvoyant would therefore have a level of consciousness
that is beyond or on this side of cause and effect. It must be eternity then. And of course there
would be no more guilt at this level of consciousness. Because guilt, cause and effect take
time. But it no longer existed in the usual sense.
True clairvoyance is - if it actually exists - upon closer inspection an incredibly inspiring
phenomenon that completely goes beyond the scope of what most people think is possible,
so that clairvoyance inevitably has to be labelled as nonsense.
Time and again people appear on television who make an effort to refute this or that
supernatural phenomenon. Certainly there are tricksters and swindlers in the profession of the
supernatural, possibly even more than in politics, with bank consultants and locksmiths. Might
be. But if you take a closer look at these cause-and-effect Jesuits of pure science in their fight
against supernatural beliefs, they are mostly types who have lost all healthy instinct for
inspiration. Many of them seem to waste all their life energy exposing falsehood instead of
discovering the truth. Where will you end up following people like that? Of course, in a place
where you know everything is false, but nothing true. By nature, such a place is much closer
to hell than heaven.

Clairvoyance - and also oral and astrology - have always been in the tension and mine field of
politics. This is why Nostradamus coded his predictions so extremely, and why the Catholic
Church does not release a number of older prophecies. Now guess what is predicted in these
prophecies about the fate of the Catholic Church? Exactly. A revolution in the Vatican (see
page 232 "The Bloodbath in the Vatican"),

Of course, it is difficult to say to what extent politics' aversion to precognition has a concrete
effect. But it makes sense that little money goes into precognition research. And if so, then
people and institutions are promoted who work to provide counter-evidence and to expose
fraudsters, who undoubtedly exist in large numbers. An ideal example of such a strange
orientation of research in the case of clairvoyance is the Freiburg Institute for Frontier Areas
of Psychology and Mental Health (IGPP), which, according to telephone information, has
never dealt in detail with the well-known Bavarian clairvoyant Alois Irlmaier. And this despite
the fact that the head of the IGPP, the well-known German parapsychologist Prof. Hans
Bender, said the following about Alois Irlmaier (d. 1959) in comparison to other clairvoyants in
1975:
... It seems certain that Irlmaier in particular had psi abilities. [...] Irlmaier can be described as one of the most
25
astonishing phenomena among the sensitives of recent times.
 Fig. 6: Alois Irlmaier, around 1955

When was the IGPP founded? In 1950! When did Alois Irlmaier reach the peak of his
popularity? In 1950. Strange coincidence.

But if you know that Alois Irlmaier - like other seers - predicted the downfall of democracy in
Europe and the Catholic Church an extremely serious and bloody crisis, then it doesn't take
much imagination to get the idea that you with this amazing Bavarian clairvoyant and his
geopolitical prophecies did not want to know exactly. During Irlmaier's lifetime, Prof. Hans
Bender had ten years (1950 to 1959) to get to the bottom of the Irlmaier phenomenon. But as
far as is known, he never interviewed the seer, never questioned contemporary witnesses - of
whom there were not hundreds but thousands (!) at the time. According to information from
the IGPP, publications about Alois Irlmaier were not even systematically archived.
And of course it has to be considered that Prof. Bender did study the well builder, dowser and
clairvoyant Alois Irlmaier in more detail, but the results disappeared in the drawer and instead
a crazy balancing act was attempted in public, after which Irlmaier made private predictions
almost always right, but almost always wrong in global politics. What nonsense!

The fact that top politicians are still among the regular customers of clairvoyants and
astrologers is another matter - and finally makes all of this incomprehensibly grotesque. In my
book Psychics and Astrologers in the Service of Power, I researched some such cases, such
as US President Ronald Reagan, French President François Mitterrand, and German
Chancellor Konrad Adenauer.
So, research in the field of precognition is structurally underfunded, tendentious, and it's safe
to assume that talented scientists in this strange field of knowledge will not jeopardise their
career prospects.

What do we learn from all of this? Don't believe anything or anyone! Get relevant prophecy
texts—like you did with this book—and read. And then just wait and see what happens. And
compare concrete predictions with concrete events.

Guessing About a Reason for War

"Why would the Russians attack us at all?" Many readers will ask themselves that question.
And it goes without saying that there must be several answers to this question. Not least
because war is always a question of great moral guilt and no one likes to come from a country
and belong to a people that is responsible for a war - especially when it is a world war. We
Germans in particular can sing whole arias on the subject of "war and guilt". In this respect we
are true master singers.

The USA as the alleged main culprit

Since 2014 at the latest, it has been no secret who, from the Russian point of view, was the
real cause of the great war: the United States of America. There have been corresponding
public statements clearly pointing in this direction from Russia's President Vladimir Putin, his
interim President Medvedev, Foreign Minister Lavrov, prominent Putin advisors such as
Sergei Glazjev, well-known Russian geo strategists and others. There is now a whole
mountain of posts on the Internet that share this Russian perspective: The bad guys - for the
Russians, that's the USA.

Such posts more or less bluntly claim that the US is pursuing a strategy to bring Russia under
Western control in order to gain direct access to Russia's raw materials (which Adolf Hitler
also had in mind). If necessary, Russia should be broken up as a state in its current form.
Either by provoking a war in Russia and losing it, or by ousting Putin's team and replacing it
with a tame, pro-Western government that can then steal Russian mineral resources from
under its ass.

However, once real democracy was introduced in Russia, the country would probably soon
further disintegrate, after all there are a lot of ethnic minorities in Russia. The chaos would
probably not be over if Putin were ousted. From the Russian point of view and from the point
of view of the Russian political elite, it is about Russia's survival itself. Putin is now also saying
this quite openly (see page 69): It's not about Crimea - it's ultimately about Russia's very
existence! That is the view of Putin and his comrades-in-arms.

As for the war variant, Russia fears that a concrete military solution would be to corner and
provoke Russia so long that it commits some kind of desperate military act, which it then
bitterly regrets. It would be enough for the key politicians and military officials in the Kremlin
to lose their nerve at a certain point in time. Such an act of desperation could then undoubtedly
consist of a surprise attack on Western Europe.

If the West were actually attempting to isolate Russia and secede from Western Europe, such
a preventive strike would be a logical counter-strategy from the Russian point of view: the
military rupture of an isolation ring before it was complete. Of course, this possible reaction
would also be clear to the USA, and they would take appropriate precautions. But taking
precautions is such a thing in the event of war. In any case, the possibility that Russia is to be
provoked into a surprise attack is discussed in many places on the Internet, e.g. also on
Youtube.

Conventionally, a Russian preventive strike against Western Europe would be quite feasible,
after all, the German Bundeswehr, for example, is only a shadow of itself. The Russian army
may be ailing - things are at least as bad in Western Europe. The only real problem Russia
would have would be avoiding an all-out nuclear war. Whether avoiding nuclear war would be
realistic or not would be irrelevant. The decisive factor would be whether the Kremlin believes
that this risk is so small that it can be accepted. If Russia "could handle" 27 million dead in
World War II, then certain fears in the event of a Third World War are put into perspective.
That's something people in Germany tend to forget. So don't rely so much on human reason.

Of course, from the Western point of view, Russia would be the culprit in the Russian
surprise attack, since it would have started the war.

Russia as the Alleged Main Culprit

From a Western perspective, then, the blame for the war would lie with Putin and his
comrades-in-arms, who supposedly want the former USSR back. More or less.

The thesis of Russia's desire for former greatness was already making the rounds after the
annexation of Crimea, but it was not until November 2014 that it received significant impetus,
from German Chancellor Angela Merkel of all people. As part of the G20 summit in Australia,
Angela Merkel gave a speech in which she identified the next victims of the new Russian drive
to expand - according to Merkel - in the Western Balkans. Der Spiegel willingly followed suit
and wrote in a headline "Putin's policy of annexation". The article then says about Angela
Merkel's vision for the future:
One sentence in particular made the audience sit up and take notice: »And it's not just about Ukraine.
It's about Moldova, it's about Georgia, if it goes on like this [...] you have to ask questions about Serbia,
you have to ask questions about the Western Balkans.«26

This opened up a new dimension of fear. It was clear to everyone that the Baltic States and
Ukraine were worried about Russia. But Serbia? The Western Balkans? That was a quantum
leap! The hissing wild cat Putin had become a Siberian tiger. At least in the eyes of Angela
Merkel.

Angela Merkel made the relevant statement on November 17, 2014 in Sydney in a panel
discussion following her speech at the Lowy Institute. Only three days later, her statement
became the basis of the political talk show Maybrit III - topic: "Putin's hunger for power - how
far will Moscow go?"

The presenter Maybrit III began the program with the following introduction:
So far we've called it the Ukraine crisis and obviously wanted to express that this conflict is regionally limited. The
chancellor has put an end to this illusion.

And? Did the chancellor substitute the truth for the "illusion"? Or did she just replace Illusion
A with Illusion B? The presenter continues:
She fears, quote: "a wildfire" - and spoke openly of the countries to which it can [still] spread. From Moldova,
Georgia, to Serbia, a country that is preparing to join the European Union. In Vladimir Putin she sees the arsonist
responsible for this conflagration. What brings you to this assessment?

Very good question. Did Mrs. Merkel realise this when she looked deep into Vladimir Putin's
eyes? Or is this knowledge based on information from German secret services? Or is this
knowledge based on information from the trustworthy secret service that also trustfully listens
to Mrs Merkel's mobile phone?

Moderator Maybrit lllner continues:

Is Ukraine just the beginning of Putin's plans? Are we witnessing the beginning of a struggle for Central and Eastern
Europe, waged by all means, economic, political and perhaps also military?

The subtext is clear: it's about the threat of a third world war. Or does anyone here believe
that the great NATO-Russia conflict will not happen if Russia invades western Ukraine - or the
Baltic States?

Six days after the Illner broadcast, Chancellor Merkel was criticised in the German Bundestag
by Sahra Wagenknecht, the economic policy spokeswoman for Die Linken:
You warn of a conflagration, Ms. Merkel, but you are one of the men walking around with lit matches. Verbal
upgrades are always the beginning of the worst.27

Burning match hits it well. Angela Merkel can't walk around with one like this for long without
burning her fingers. Accusing Putin of suspecting him or stoking fears that he will now venture
further repressively west - that is definitely verbal armour. Mrs. Merkel sows distrust. It is
precisely in this way that one can conjure up the greatest conflicts. Hostility begins with
distrust. In private life as well as in politics.

Of course, all of this only works because "the people" believe the chancellor. And strangely
enough, people from abroad also ensure this belief in the chancellor.

Angela Merkel - The Far Best Putin Understander

So that Angela Merkel's point of view penetrates the political debate with the appropriate
resonance, she was presented on the podium of the Lowy Institute in Sydney as the best Putin
understander by far. The moderator asked her after the end of her speech there:
No Western leader knows Mr. Putin better than you. We read this morning that you had bilateral talks in Brisbane
with Mr Putin. My question: How can we influence Mr. Putin? In the last few months there has been a strong
sanctions program against Russia and as you know Russia has an endless capacity to endure and we see the
sanctions only increasing its popularity. What would be the best carrot-and-stick strategy in this case?28

Only three weeks after this unofficial proclamation of Angela Merkel as the best Putin
understander by far, she unmasks herself by publicly admitting that she doesn't know what
Putin wants (interview in Tagesthemen on December 8, 2014, see below). But first of all, let's
ask ourselves again where Angela Merkel could have gotten this "special knowledge" about
Vladimir Putin? From the German secret and intelligence services? They don't even notice
when the Chancellor is being bugged. So whether the German secret service is the true Putin
understander in the background? What is the moderator aiming for at the Lowy Institute? On
Merkel's secret service information? Or Merkel's female intuition, which kicks in with
breathtaking precision when the evil Vladimir's voice rings out on the other end of the line?

Or is the moderator at the Lowy Institute simply interested in presenting Angela Merkel as the
new top seller for Washington's Russia policy? We remember Helmut Schmidt's warning
words of May 2014. In the months that followed, Western policy toward Russia consistently
pushed further in the direction Helmut Schmidt feared. What our Putin expert from the
Chancellery was doing there in Sydney definitely had something of "talking about the Third
World War" - exactly what Helmut Schmidt didn't want, but feared. Former Chancellor Schmidt
can only have understood Merkel's words to mean that she was talking about a third world
war. You can't tinker much further with the enemy image of Russia: The Russians in the
Western Balkans? After that there isn't much. A look at the atlas is enough. Just one step
further beyond Serbia and NATO would be its alliance event, that is, World War III.

Angela Merkel's words carry weight. She may not be a good speaker, but her important
statements are always staged in such a way that they also have the desired effect. A large
part of the voters believe her.

Let's now look at the interview sequence from the ARD Tagesthemen of December 8, 2014,
in which the world's best understander of Putin takes her oath of disclosure. Angela Merkel
was interviewed by the well-known and veteran moderator Thomas Roth. This initially blew
some wind into the chancellor's sails:
You are certainly the politician in Europe, if not in the world, who has spoken MOST [emphatically] with the Russian
President [...] Isn't it a disappointment when you talk to someone so often and yet can not rely on what he means,
what he says and then also does what he says?

Angela Merkel answers this question with her typically hesitant optimism, and at the end of
the interview Thomas Roth then asked, pausing after almost every word:
Finally, Ms. Merkel: What - what do YOU suspect [emphatically], what does Putin really want in the end?

The chancellor:
Look, that's not my main task right now, that, that - er - finding out, but I want us to be able to work in partnership
with Russia ...
Well, that almost sounds as if Angela Merkel doesn't even know what "Putin really wants" and
above all: as if it doesn't particularly interest her either. The chancellor gives the impression
that she has so much to do that she has to take care of other things first: the outstanding tasks.
Finding out what Putin wants is obviously not one of them. Our chancellor will do that sometime
later. When she has time. And she admits that too. In public.

Merkel continues:
... there have been serious upheavals here, - such as E.g. the annexation of Crimea - if you allow
something like that, then it shakes the very foundations of the European order, and that is why we
cannot accept it.
But otherwise I'm working for a diplomatic solution, and I'm absolutely convinced that this solution can
be achieved. We may just need a much longer breath than we sometimes imagined, and daily practice
- see e.g. the Minsk Agreement - shows that, but we must never give up working for it.

Angela Merkel doesn't know what Putin wants? And she doesn't want to find out either? Should
you believe that? In any case, the fact is that she does not want to talk about it. She's avoiding
the topic! Pandora's box is not touched.

On the one hand, Angela Merkel pretends not to know what Putin wants, on the other hand
she is "very firmly convinced" that she is doing the right thing. The absurdity of the situation
can hardly be surpassed.

One can therefore say that the cause of the great war "from a Western point of view" lay in
the new Russian superpower fantasies. But it would be wrong to put it that way, because as
every citizen was able to follow in relevant online portals up until at least November 2014, "the
threat from Russia" was only the view of a minority in Germany. According to a Spiegel poll in
March 2014, "most Germans" thought Crimea's annexation to Russia was "okay". »According
to a TNS survey for Der Spiegel, a majority of Germans understood the Russian approach. 54
percent were of the opinion that the West should accept the annexation of Crimea to
Russia.«29 Until then, the majority of the German population tended to share the Russian
perspective, at least when there was an open and honest discussion and the participants in
the discussion were not pre-sorted , such as in some TV talk show or discussion group. All of
this means: »Western perspective« is by no means to be equated with »perspective of the
German population«!

Let's be clear: it is the historical duty of the Germans in particular to check very carefully in
this global political situation whether they are actually dealing with an increasingly dangerous
Russia, or whether the real danger does not rather emanate from those who are sowing
mistrust of Russia?

Dominotheorie 2.0
Let's now take a closer look at the "Western" variant of the interpretation with the new Russian
desire to expand: As already mentioned, the suggestive potential of the newly fueled "Russian
fear" lies in the thesis that, after Crimea and eastern Ukraine, Russia will also conquer the rest
of the Ukraine claws, then the Baltic States, Moldova, Georgia and possibly parts of the
Balkans.

A corresponding basic pattern is known from the Cold War and the time of the fight against
communism. It's called the domino theory: first Korea, until then, the majority of the German
population had tended to share, then Vietnam, then Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Malaysia,
Indonesia, Burma, then India and later the whole world. The stupid thing is that there was no
domino effect at that time, although the USA was expelled from Vietnam and the USA justified
the fight there with the prevention of a domino effect.

It follows that the term domino theory can no longer be used in connection with Russia
because it stands for lack of credibility and strategic misjudgment - for a concept of the West
that has proven to be a pipe dream - and has cost millions of lives. It is estimated that up to
four million Vietnamese were killed. The number of GIs killed was just under 60,000.

Of course, one could just as easily claim that the US stopped the falling dominoes by killing
12 percent of Vietnam's civilian population.30
In any case, in 2015, TV viewers can no longer be shown maps of how Russia is gradually
taking one country after another if Putin is not stopped in time. As a consequence, this means
that the principle of a domino effect and the Russian bear, which from now on will keep
thrashing around, has to be communicated more on an emotional level with suggestions and
hints and cannot be so rationally justified. The propaganda department doesn't look too closely
at the details because they know the devil is in the details. Fear is stoked, but the word World
War III is not uttered, even though this is the real vanishing point of all fomented fears. You
just learned something new, also in psychological warfare.

Another perspective helps to understand the overall situation: After the end of the Second
World War, the western victorious powers, the USA and England, practically threw the whole
of Eastern Europe into the Russians' jaws. France and England had indeed declared war on
Nazi Germany because of the German invasion of Poland - and only then did everything
become a world war, but after May 1945 the Western Allies didn't give a damn about the
approximately 30 million Poles.

In theory, however, the USA could have expelled Russia from Eastern Europe after 1945, after
all there was a time window from 1945 to 1949 in which the USA continued to increase its
atomic arsenal, but the USSR still did not have a single atomic bomb! Again: For four years
the Russians did not have a single atomic bomb. They were just as nuclear-free as just-
defeated Japan.

Due to its technological superiority, the USA could have exerted sustained massive pressure
on Moscow to withdraw from Eastern Europe within this time window. Compared to today, it
would have been "relatively" risk-free to put Russia in its place. Russia still had no nuclear
bombs.
But it wasn't done. The USA, for example, could initially have used part of their atomic bombs
to completely pulverize the Russian nuclear research facilities currently being built and to kill
the nuclear specialists concentrated there. It would have been clear to Stalin that he would
have no chance against the West in the foreseeable future, even if he had won a conventional
battle here and there. The Japanese capitulated after two atomic bombs, the Russians would
have capitulated after ten atomic bombs at the latest.

Of course, it would have taken a special effort to explain to the war-weary British and American
population that the war was going to continue. But where there's a will, there's a way. A very
obvious and certainly ultimately extremely convincing argument would have been that if the
West does nothing now, in a few years' time it will find itself in a major nuclear war with Russia,
with nuclear bombs on London, Paris and New York. In fact, as early as 1949/1950 the USA
had plans to destroy the Russian tank armies with atomic bombs in an emergency in the
middle of West Germany between the Main and the North Sea, which was also reported openly
in German daily newspapers at the time.31
If the US was ready in 1950 to stop the Russians on West German territory with, say, 20
atomic bombs, why couldn't they have thrown the Red Army out of Eastern Europe with ten
atomic bombs on Russian territory three or four years earlier?

If the Russians threw all of Eastern Europe down their throats in 1945, even though it would
have been much easier to put pressure on Russia than it is today, why should it suddenly be
such a big problem in 2014/2015, Crimea and a write off of a few eastern Ukrainian provinces?
Why not offer Russia a conference to find a peaceful solution to its minority problems in the
Baltics and elsewhere? It would never, ever be as bad as the loss of all of Eastern Europe
after 1945.
It is also seriously doubtful that Russia, even if it invades part of Ukraine and the Baltic States
in extreme cases, will advance further west. It may be that Putin actually has a secret "home
to the Reich" plan. But the comparison with Hitler's expansionist policy lags far and wide.
Because Hitler used a time window in Western Europe during which France, Great Britain and
the USA were completely unprepared militarily. Does anyone want to say that the US is
militarily unprepared these days? With their gigantic armaments expenditure, which has been
vastly (currently seven times) higher than that of the Russians for years?

So spreading the sense of a Russian threat is one thing. Thinking through this possible threat
in detail is something else entirely. And that is exactly why this is not done in public. Fear is
being stirred up in the West, and this fear is being used to build up a military threat potential
against Russia, without much murmuring from the Western peoples, which will provoke Russia
to commit a mad act that will lead to the destruction of Russia. Such a perfectly plausible
explanation.

It may be that Russia increases the pressure on those neighbouring countries where there are
large Russian minorities. But that is something completely different than a Russian push
towards the Atlantic.

So these are the two main explanations for the prophesied Third World War:
• Russia believes it is threatened by the West.
• Russia wants to return to its former glory and threatens the West.
As far as the "old greatness of Russia" is concerned, it must also be mentioned that building
an empire, especially in the face of stronger opponents, requires a great idea that motivates
the local elite. If you are technologically superior to your opponents and you have an easy
game, greed for power and wealth is enough. But if the opponent is stronger and more energy
is required, more commitment and perseverance, you need the power of a big idea. You need
a special faith that inspires you and allows you to endure greater sacrifices.
But where does such a great idea currently exist in Russia? Communism is dead. At best,
Russia represents the idea of a multipolar world, state-controlled capitalism and a
conservative value system.
Ultimately, everything boils down to these two explanations: Russian fear or Russian
megalomania. One of the two explanatory models will be wrong, even a lie. We Germans and
the whole world know from the USA that they lied in the run-up to the Iraq war in 2003 in order
to be able to wage this war. And the world also knows that the US lied to get their Vietnam
War. The North Vietnamese allegedly fired on two US warships off the North Vietnamese coast
in the Gulf of Tonkin in early August 1964, which formally triggered the US-Vietnam War. In
1971, it emerged that the US government had issued a deliberate misrepresentation in August
1964, which was even admitted in 1995 by ex-US Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara in
his memoirs.32

As far as a possible higher US strategy is concerned, it should also be noted that there are
explanatory models according to which the US wants to neutralise Russia before China
becomes too powerful and that after Russia they also want to take on China. The ultimate goal
would be the world state. And a world state would not be a bad thing in and of itself, because
world empires - see the Roman Empire, the empire of Genghis Khan - often guarantee peace
within the empire. A first truly worldwide empire could also guarantee truly worldwide peace
for the first time. Maybe even for 1000 years. In and of itself a very good thing. It just shouldn't
be a world dictatorship that then oppresses and exploits humanity.

From the point of view of European prophecy, it is clear that war is coming with Russia. In this
respect, the question of guilt and cause would initially be secondary. I have only worked out
the question of possible reasons for the war because many readers will ask themselves the
question of the reason and purpose. For us Germans, Austrians and German-speaking Swiss,
however, the main thing is to recognize in good time whether war is actually coming, when
exactly and how best to prepare for it. And it should be clear to us that before the war a
Tsunami of lies would pass over us.

Addendum:
For the sake of completeness, a Soviet secret agent named Anatoly M. Golitsyn, born in
1926, who fled to the West in 1961, helped to expose some KGB agents and then published
a book33 in the USA in 1984, in which he claimed that the whole perestroika and upheaval
in the East, including the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and the USSR, was just one gigantic
ploy designed to trick the West into disarming so that one day the West could be
defenselessly overwhelmed by Russia. The decisive flaw in the thesis is that the USA has by
no means disarmed, but has had a gigantic defence budget for years.
Don't talk about the Cold War
At the beginning of this chapter, a definition of the term Cold War: The Cold War is the
period between 1945 and 1990, i.e. between the end of the Second World War and German
reunification. This period was marked by the ideological and military rivalry between Russia
and the United States and their military alliances. The coldness of the Cold War ultimately
stems from the nuclear arms race and the impending danger of total nuclear annihilation for
both warring parties, indeed for the entire planet. Without nuclear weapons and without the
"balance of terror" there would not have been a Cold War, but perhaps a Third World War
long before the USSR collapsed.

The following essay is about how the actual danger of war is obscured in our media with the
diffuse use of the term »(new) Cold War«:
Until the beginning of February 2015, leading Western politicians and much of the media gave
the public the feeling that despite all the tensions with Russia, we still do not have a new Cold
War, yes - that a new Cold War is not even seriously threatened. When, in February 2015, the
media suddenly reported that the USA might soon start supplying large quantities of weapons
to Ukraine, and Chancellor Merkel and French President Hollande jetted head over heels to
Moscow on February 6 for a meeting with Putin, things changed the choice of words in our
media. Now the talk was of the new Cold War. The subsequent conference in Minsk from
February 11 to 12 was hyped up as a “war or peace” conference, with the constant message
that a major war in Ukraine with American and Russian participation could very soon turn into
a third world war . And in this acute situation, in which the unrest and fear in the population
increased significantly, the people were also spoken to and spoke of a "new Cold War". After
all, the people must not get the feeling that politics and the mass media live in a completely
different world. In such moments, politicians and the mass media show the people a "certain
sympathy" and also use "nonsense". But as soon as the political situation and thus the feelings
of the people have calmed down again, they switch back to calming mode - until the next time
the situation deteriorates again. And so, at some point, a fatal deadening process sets in.

Admittedly, it could be that at some point the discord between East and West accumulates so
much and becomes so shrill that people actually talk about a new Cold War. But even then
one could downplay the danger. For example, by giving the impression that this new Cold War
will end very soon, or by saying: »We will win this Cold War too. Do not worry."

»A relapse into the Cold War must be prevented at all costs!«

If you follow the media coverage more closely, you will have noticed that some commentators
or observers are already talking about a new Cold War, while others are not (yet) (as of the
end of January 2015). But it hasn't just been like this since the Ukraine crisis; in principle, a
corresponding discussion has been going on for years. As early as 2008, when Russia was
waging a brief war with Georgia, Peter Scholl-Latour's book The Road to the New Cold War
was published shortly thereafter. But Peter Scholl-Latour had warned long before 2008 that
the Cold War had in fact never ended.

The majority of people react to contradictions and ambiguities, as in the case of the possible
new Cold War, by simply picking out what suits them best. It doesn't really care what's actually
going on. Instead, you choose the opinion that you feel most comfortable with and that bothers
you the least. It has long been known that many people make decisions based on this kind of
pleasure principle, especially in the advertising industry, the entertainment industry and, of
course, in politics. The ancient Romans already knew that »the people want to be lied to«.
People prefer not to hear about negative things, especially when they would require a change
in personal behaviour. Bad news is okay if it brings some tension into our everyday lives. But
if we can no longer sleep at night as a result, that is definitely going too far.

Assuming that we were already in the midst of a new Cold War, there would also be "good"
reasons not to tell the good citizens about it. The best of all reasons would be that a new Cold
War would be proof of the total failure of Western Russia policy since the breakup of the USSR.

If we were already in a new Cold War, entire generations of Western and especially German
politicians would have missed the opportunity to build a genuine, trusting and stable
partnership with Russia over the past 25 years. And this total failure would really be no small
matter. After all, it would be extremely questionable whether the second Cold War would end
as happily as the first? And if not? Well, everyone knows or suspects that we could then find
ourselves in a Third World War.

In addition, this foreign policy meltdown of a new Cold War would further reduce the
confidence of the European people in their governments, which had already been shaken by
the euro crisis. A new Cold War or its quasi-public proclamation by politicians and the mass
media would be a kind of official disqualification for the entire political class here in the country
and throughout Europe. If Chancellor Merkel or a successor were to say that we are now
unfortunately in the midst of a new Cold War, would she have to explain very soon how this
could have happened? Of course, you would also be asked how, in your opinion, this new
Cold War should end? The Chancellor (or her successor) will not be able to answer that. For
here ends the arts of the oracle of official prophecy. For example, in her 2014 speech at the
Lowy Institute in Sydney, Angela Merkel said of the West's policy on Russia:
Now [...] we have to somehow [!] show what we have now learned from all this [two world wars]. However, since
you cannot predict the future, it is not easy to find the right path. [...] On the other hand, we know that regional
conflicts can very quickly escalate into a conflagration. [...] This conflict cannot be solved militarily. That would lead
to a military confrontation with Russia, which would certainly not be local. [And that's called World War III.] On the
other hand, one cannot say: because we cannot solve it militarily, we cannot solve it at all. [...] If the popularity [of
Putin as a result of the Crimea secession/annexation and partly also the sanctions] increases for a short time, then
it increases. If we don't believe that our values are worth so much that they will eventually prevail, then we don't
have to give our Sunday speeches anymore. That's why I have a very certain feeling that the basic direction is
correct..34

A very safe feeling ...? Great. Excellent! However, an unfortunate predecessor of Mrs. Merkel
pulled a lot more from the leather in moments of increased risk. This A.H. from B. immediately
pulled out all the stops on appropriate occasions and ranted about "divine providence" guiding
him. Whether it's a very sure gut feeling or a very sure divine providence: one way or the other.
Better safe than sorry! Apparently there has to be a certain "emotional factor" - something
beyond pure cold reason - for the good citizen to click and dare to believe the thing in the right
way.
During the financial crisis in 2009, the Berlin spin doctors for Merkel, Schäuble & Co. still put
together the slogan »We drive on sight«. In the case of Putin, "driving on sight" would of course
not be such a good oracle. Because every citizen would fear that the cannon barrel of a
Russian tank would suddenly burst out of the fog of unpredictability and there would be no
time to flee.
We can't "drive on sight" this time. This time, it's better to keep quiet about the fact that we've
already manoeuvred ourselves into the middle of a fog bank. The slogan is simple: »Don't
mention the war! - There can be no war! There will be no war! Don't talk about the new Cold
War - and certainly not about the Third World War!« And this applies not only to the chancellor,
foreign minister and government spokesman, but also to practically the entire press. Try to get
through a reader's comment on Spiegel-Online if the term Third World War appears there.

Of course, the term Cold War is occasionally played with - see Spiegel cover at the top of
page 21. But all in all, the impression that we are now actually in a new Cold War - and thus
on the launch pad for a Third World War - has not been allowed to arise on a broad front. One
avoids this discussion like the devil avoids holy water. Anyone who was silent during the Third
World War should at most whisper during the new Cold War.
The Russian way of dealing with the risk of war, on the other hand, is surprisingly open. In the
Russian media, there is relatively open talk about an (alleged?) threat to Russia from the West
and (alleged?) Western geo strategists who (allegedly) aim to neutralise Russia as a great
power are thoroughly discussed. And finally. In the long term, that would mean separating
Siberia from Russia (see Putin's statement on the bear in the taiga on page 69), cutting off
Russia from a large part of its raw materials and thus permanently and sustainably weakening
it. In view of such a prospect for the future, many Russians are of course wondering what will
happen after Russia has collapsed? And as they do so, they look anxiously at China and
remember the more than 200 years (1237-1480) when large parts of Russia were under
Mongol rule.
So the Russians are very afraid: either Russia is strong or it goes under. Although Russia has
a huge territory that can help it through one or the other phase of weakness (see Napoleon
and Hitler) - Russia is allowed to weaken once in a while, but alas, it will finally become a
weakling. Then it's over with Mother Russia.
So let's assume we're already in a new Cold War. How would it go then? As is well known,
the first Cold War ended with the West using its economic superiority and preparing Russia
for bankruptcy. Every Russian knows that. At that time, however, the Soviet economy and
armaments industry could still rely on a base of 290 million Soviet citizens. Not to mention the
help of the GDR, Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Bulgaria, etc. Nowadays it is - to put
it very simply - »140 million Russian citizens against the rest of the world«.

Let's look again at the current arms expenditures of the USA/NATO and Russia (RF = Russian
Federation) in billions of US dollars:

Fig. 7: 'Rüstungsausgaben 2013 in Mrd. US-Dollar

RF = 'Russian Federation. 'NATO figures only include US, France, UK, Germany, Italy, Turkey,
Netherlands, Spain, Norway and Poland figures; Source: statista.com

The United States alone has a defence budget of $640 billion, which is around seven times
that of Russia's $88 billion. If you include the larger NATO countries, in 2013 NATO spent
around ten times as much on armaments as Russia. With such a huge inferiority, how can
Russia get involved in a new Cold War and a new arms race?

A hugely important question. If every German were to ask themselves this question several
times a day, there might not be more people who "understand Putin," but the number of people
who don't understand Merkel is likely to increase significantly in this country. But this one

Question is not discussed in our media. Why? Is it because the simple comparison of these
figures on armaments expenditure, which can be called up in eight seconds on the Internet,
reduces the thesis of the Russian threat to absurdity and makes its ridiculousness obvious?

Of course, as a die-hard sceptic, one can now assume that the Russians produce their
weapons much cheaper and that Russian military personnel work for low wages. Might be.
But if that were the key argument, why isn't it heard anywhere?

Of course one could also include China as an ally of Russia in the calculation (2013, 188 billion
US dollar defence budget). But let's be honest: if we're so far along that we also include China
in this ugly calculation, doesn't it smell even more like a third world war?

So again: In the event of a new Cold War, we can assume that it will follow exactly the same
pattern as the first Cold War: Russia will be defeated with the economy! Be it that it's dead,
armored and embroiled in minor conventional wars of attrition here and there. Be it that it is
so badly ruined economically that there is a putsch in the Kremlin or even a civil war in the
country itself.

Russian politicians, geo strategists, journalists and certainly a large part of the Russian
population know very well how the West defeated the USSR: with the economy. And now
Vladimir Putin is supposed to make exactly the same mistake again with a significantly worse
starting point compared to 1980? Another Cold War? Who should believe this nonsense? It
may well be that the average German media consumer is so stupid, but not Vladimir Putin!
Vladimir Putin knows very well that the West can give him a hard time economically.

Then there are people who give the impression that Putin and his men are not forward-looking
enough. "Good tactician, but bad strategist" they say. Oh yes? Check out Wikipedia to see
how many of the world chess champions are from Russia. To put it very bluntly: If there is one
thing »the Russian« can do, it is thinking several moves in advance!

Putin cannot get involved in a new arms race. So will there then be a longer new Cold War
without an arms race? Probably not. And how should that work? It would be more likely and
strategically more sensible if Russia struck surprisingly before the major rearmament actually
started in the West. Hitler employed just such a strategy. Although France and England had
declared war on him, in fact in 1939 France and England were neither militarily nor industrially
ready for war with Germany. That was shown all too clearly in 1940 during the French
campaign. France was defeated in a few weeks, even though it declared war on Germany -
and not vice versa.

If European prophecy is to be believed, Russia faces the same fate as Nazi Germany: it strikes
by surprise, but then loses the war.
Of course, Russia and the political elite around Putin could simply capitulate. Hitler could have
done that too. And also Napoleon. But nobody did. Just why?

So, is the last reasonable chance for the Russian people to oust Putin? It doesn't look like it
at the moment. On the contrary, the Russians are rallying around their president.
Psychologically, there are certainly parallels to Hitler and the Germans. Not a good sign.

If one speaks of war, one speaks of the military. A key question in this chapter is therefore:
How strong is the West? And how strong is Russia? How strong are NATO's conventional
forces in Europe and how strong are Russia's conventional forces here?
Word has gotten around that the German Bundeswehr has become a laughing stock. It is
known that the Bundeswehr only has 225 of the 2125 Leopard 2 main battle tanks. On the one
hand, this is one Reduction to ten percent, but on the other hand only half the truth. Because
during the Cold War (specifically 1985), the German Bundeswehr still had more than 4,600
battle tanks.35 Seen in this way, the 225 Leo' 2 results in a reduction to around five percent -
although admittedly the Leo' 2 are of course significantly more powerful. Unfortunately, these
225 Leo' 2 are only the planned target. Nobody knows exactly how many of them are
incapacitated in the workshop due to a lack of spare parts.

Elsewhere in Western Europe things are not much better. The Americans have largely
withdrawn from Europe. A strange side note: Great Britain announced in 2012 that it intends
to relocate the majority of its tanks from the island to the mainland in Germany 36 because
the British army is on the island

Apparently there is no land where they can be parked cheaply (6000 British tanks, probably
including armoured personnel carriers, etc. are to go to Mönchengladbach). Should you
believe that? Or do the British want to ship their tanks to Germany as a precaution? So that
you have them on site when you need them?

For years we have heard from Russia's military that it is only a shadow of its former glory.
However, it was always concealed how desolate the situation is in Western Europe.
Consequently, if one restricts one's view to Europe, Russia need not be strong in the earlier
sense. It would do just fine if it was strong enough to overwhelm the western European
weaklings.

In addition, it has been known since the Chinese philosopher and strategist Sun Tzu (around
500 BC) at the latest that deceiving the enemy is part of the craft of war. When one is weak
one feigns strength, when one is strong one feigns weakness. Feigning weakness makes
sense if you want to lure your opponent into a trap.

So who should we believe when the Russian combat power is reported? The Russians? the
west? The leading German media? Any London institutes for strategic studies?

Now you will rightly point to the United States and its "nuclear shield," or to the Cold War
promise to treat an attack on Western Europe as an attack on the United States, then to strike
with nuclear weapons and thus Russian nuclear attacks on that risking US territory. That's
true, but that's not the point. What matters is, quite simply, whether the Americans want to die
for the Europeans - or, more precisely, whether the Russians think the Americans are willing
to die for Europe?

For us Germans, the key question in the game may be: “How much can we trust the USA?”
This question is also not a real issue in our media. From time to time this question is played
with. But care is taken that the people do not think about it too long and too deeply. In fact, in
Germany it is a matter of state to believe the US, although we Germans know that the US is
willing to lie and make false accusations if they really want war.

If the Americans were not prepared to die for Europe at the crucial moment, the following
scenario would be conceivable: Russia invades Western Europe with conventional weapons
in a flash and tries to advance to the Atlantic and the North Sea.

It can be done in a few days. Let's say in a week. Then the Russians stop and the Russian
President calls Washington and proposes a ceasefire agreement. At this point, the USA can
almost forget about a reconquest of mainland Europe from England, as in the Second World
War. In the age of long-range, accurate missiles and supersonic underwater torpedoes37 (!)
it is no longer so easy to transport vast quantities of weapons and soldiers across the Atlantic
in such a situation.

Again, the crucial question is whether Moscow believes that the United States would be willing
to die for Europe if the worst came to the worst. And not just with a few 100,000 men like in
the Second World War (USA 300,000 dead), but with millions and over millions of US citizens.

Although Russia may be inferior to the US in conventional military terms, the situation in
Europe is such that a surprise attack by Russia cannot be ruled out. And when push comes
to shove, please don't think that the Kremlin isn't willing to take very big risks and gamble very
big.

In addition, in Europe and, of course, in Germany, the domestic political and economic
situation alone no longer allows people to speak openly about the possible danger of a world
war. Simply because the citizens would feel that something must have gone terribly wrong in
Europe since the fall of the wall and the disintegration of the USSR, i.e. for more than two
decades. And it would be damn hard to believe that it was just a decade-long accumulation of
"dumb mistakes."

So the slogan here in the country is: »Don't mention the war! Don't talk about the new Cold
War.« If the people were allowed to become convinced and permanently consolidate that we
were living in a new Cold War, the question would very soon be asked whether and when it
will become hotter. One would ask why the Bundeswehr is in such a desolate state, why
conscription was abolished, and why none of this was seen coming much earlier? And then
anti-war parties would become en masse.

Maintaining public confusion about whether or not we are already in a new Cold War obscures
the real danger of a third world war. The members of the Western government, especially in
Washington and Berlin, and leading party officials play a decisive role in this cover-up. Even
if some print media once put the (possible?) new Cold War on the front pages, that does not
mean that the people really recognize the real danger.
 "No new Cold War if..."

For an even better understanding of the question of how the broad masses are weighed into
false security and mentally paralyzed by the non-use of the term Cold War and new Cold
War, the following research result:
On December 28, 2014, I googled “new cold war” on the internet. Before that, I set the
search setting to "last week." As expected, none of the major mainstream mass media such
as Spiegel, Welt, Süddeutsche Zeitung, etc. were found on the first few pages of the list of
hits (ten hits per page). vicinity". An article from Kieler Nachrichten38 was only found on
page four of the Google search results. This is also typical, as local newspapers often
contain clear deviations from the majority opinion. The article in the Kieler Nachrichten was
about the future expectations of the Germans, and in this context the term "new Cold War"
was printed, but more in the sense of diffusing fears among the citizens.
On page five of Google there was a link to a reader's comment on Spiegel-Online. That too
is typical. There was still nothing to be found in articles by Spiegel, Focus, etc.

Finally, on page six, there was an article in a mainstream mass media with the term new Cold
War. It's about the time 39 , and that's what we call "close to the conspiracy theory". Only on
page four of the Google search You have to let the following one melt in your mouth, as it is a
prime example of the mechanisms of opinion-making in this country. The October 29, 2014
article began:
World order desperately sought. A new Cold War is not threatening. But because of the many crises, exhaustion
and discouragement are spreading, as the meeting of the International Crisis Group shows.

The crucial information comes right at the beginning: The new Cold War is neither here nor is
it threatening! Alright. Then you learn that the International Crisis Group (ICG) came to the
above conclusion at a “Global Briefing” in Brussels a week earlier. You also learn that the ICG
is funded by numerous governments and large foundations. The ICG has set itself the goal of
"identifying conflicts around the world early on and, if possible, fighting them as they arise."
Then they must have done a great job in the case of the Ukraine crisis - one could complain
about it on the side.

The article goes on to say:

At the Global Briefing, former politicians and diplomats meet once in a while with regional experts who
are "in the field" for the Crisis Group, from Afghanistan and Pakistan to South Sudan and Mali. Together
they analyse the most important conflicts of the present and ask whether there is a pattern behind the
individual trouble spots and how the international community should react to it. [...] Everyone
agreed on one thing: Almost a quarter of a century ago, after the end of the Cold War, a great opportunity
was missed. [...] It is true that the world is not falling back into a new Cold War today. But in the Ukraine
conflict, for the first time in Europe, borders were forcibly relocated.

If the ICG is made up of former politicians and diplomats, one can be fairly certain that their
ideas and thoughts are not too far removed from those of the current politicians. But let's get
down to business

even further to the bottom: on the homepage40 of the ICG, which claims to be »independent«
Business also kindly lists their donors, and frankly admits that 47 percent of the money comes
from governments. Then there is also a list of the individual government agencies that have
contributed to the financing. Usually it is the respective foreign ministries. Out of 19 authorities,
13 can be assigned to NATO (USA, Canada, Great Britain, Germany, etc.). And the non-
governmental sponsors include British Petroleum, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and George
Soros' Open Society Foundations.

So one can rightly say that it is ultimately NATO itself that assures the people - if they ever
ask - that there will be no new Cold War.

No new Cold War! That would be good news if NATO were a truly defensive alliance. But it
would be pretty bad news if NATO wasn't exactly that. Then one would have to consider that
the people should be pacified with the good news, since they are too stupid to see why Russia
must be brought to its knees at all costs.

If a primary goal of NATO public relations work is the good news that there will be no new
Cold War, one can continue to assume that this will not change overnight either. For the good
news that “there will be no new Cold War” to lose its validity, something extraordinary would
have to happen. Only what? What could be so extraordinary?

What we're used to now is this: a real war in eastern Ukraine, an economic war against Russia,
and the official declaration of NATO-Russia enmity, from both sides. We are still used to a
(still) moderate increase in troops and weapons on the border between NATO and Russia and
a mass murder (MH17) exploited by the mass media, which is blamed on Russia without any
evidence and which at other times had what it took to be a reason for war would have.

Excluding the period of massive rearmament between the start of a new Cold War and the
outbreak of the Hot War, we could very quickly transition from a new Cold War to a real Hot
War. It is therefore conceivable that we are constantly being assured that there cannot be a
new Cold War - and all of a sudden "the Russians are at the door". This is exactly what Alois
Irlmaier predicted as early as 1950: suddenly Russian soldiers stared through the windows of
the inns in the Bavarian Forest while the farmers sat quietly in front of their beer.

At some point, however, I became sceptical and wondered whether the few searches I had on
»New Cold War« might have had something to do with the Christmas season (December 22
to December 28. I also left out the time limit for the time being. And to my great delight I then
found a guest article by US Secretary of State John Kerry for the Frankfurter Allgemeine
Zeitung41 from November 9, 2014 at number one in the Google search; headline: “A new Cold
War?”

It doesn't get any better than that, I thought to myself. The US Secretary of State himself
answers our question about the new Cold War: After a few introductory lines, with which John
Kerry invoked German-American friendship, he came finally to the question he was asked in
October 2014 in Berlin at a meeting with German students:
One of the students approached me at the end of the event and asked me the following question: Can a cold war
happen again today? Many people ask themselves this question.
In the next two paragraphs, however, John Kerry does not answer the question for the time
being, but invokes German-American friendship again, puts a few more logs on the warming
fire of this beautiful friendship, and even suggests with the subheading "Americans have a
fever with Germans". mit« even a certain kinship between Krauts and Amis. In the next four
paragraphs, John Kerry then explains that the freedom of Europeans is again threatened by
Russia and that we must now stick together. Then follows the subheading "Can there be
another Cold War today?", but the question is not answered in the next two paragraphs either.

The US Secretary of State (or his speechwriter) knows how to build tension. Then finally, in
the last paragraph of the FAZ guest article by the US Secretary of State, one reads:
Could there be another cold war today? the answer is no when we remember that 25 years ago we were striving
for unity, freedom and peace for Germany as well as for Europe. The answer is no, if we convince other states to
move beyond the old East-West dividing lines. The answer is no, if we look today, tomorrow and into the next
Decades continue to focus on these goals together.

What a strange answer. Three times "no, if" ... And if so? Somehow? Or so? ... John Kerry
says that there will only be no new Cold War if three conditions are met. And the second
condition is the all-important one: namely, if the West "[can] persuade other states to leave
the old East-West dividing lines behind."
John Kerry's rhetorical house of cards would collapse instantly if he had enough sincerity to
write that "other states" simply means Putin's Russia. The plural states alone is a cover-up
tactic bordering on lies. One only has to tune into Russia Today every now and then to know
that Putin & co are already miles beyond where they are

*Although this referred to Kennedy's 1963 visit to Berlin and Ronald Reagan's 1987 call for Gorbachev
to tear down the Wall, the subheading uses the present tense to feverishly - and not feverishly - to
suggest that US citizens would also follow 51 or 27 years or even in 2014 cheering for the Germans,
which of course is ambiguous insofar as the politics in Washington, when it comes down to it, is little
oriented to the popular will of the US citizens.

West could still be convinced of anything. In fact, the Russians are now convinced - please
excuse the harsh language - that they are being screwed by the West. The political elite of
Russia now assumes that the West wants to destroy Russia's national sovereignty and that
everything else is just lying nonsense!

With his three no-ifs, John Kerry hints at the possibility that a new Cold War may very well
happen if Putin and his cronies remain in office too long. Similar undertones, which differ
significantly from the German position, can be found in other leading US politicians, who are
keeping open the possibility that the current US Russia policy could fail (see page 124, US
Vice President Joe Biden in October 2014).

The foundation of this edifice of lies is quite simply to fool the German people into believing
that there is still some room for negotiation somewhere within which one could persuade
Russia to turn back with good persuasion. That's the whole trick: "Somehow Russia can still
be persuaded." And this lie actually works if you don't listen to speeches by and interviews
with Russian politicians yourself on the Internet, for example.
So let's see what Russian President Vladimir Putin said at a press conference on December
18, 2014 to a journalist's question as shock and healing therapy, so to speak:
»You will remember that at the International Discussion Club [October 24, 2014] I brought an example with our
most famous symbol: the bear defending its taiga.
And you see, sticking with this analogy, sometimes I think it would be best if this bear just sat still. Maybe it would
be best if he stopped chasing pigs and piglets through the taiga and started collecting berries and honey. Maybe
then they'll leave him alone.
But mistake - that would not be the case. 'Cause there's always going to be someone trying to put him in chains.
And as soon as the bear is in chains, they will tear out its teeth and claws. By that I mean the power of nuclear
deterrence. As soon as - and God forbid - it happens and they no longer need the bear, the taiga will be taken over.

We have heard it ourselves from high-ranking [Western] officials that it is unfair that all of Siberia, with its immense
resources, belongs entirely to Russia. Why exactly is this unfair? Is it fair to tear Texas away from Mexico [annexed
by the US in 1845], but unfair when we work in our own country? [...] And then, when the teeth and claws are torn
out, the bear will be utterly useless. Maybe he'll be stuffed then, and that's it.
Also: It's not about Crimea, it's about defending our independence, our autonomy and our right to exist. We should
all understand that.«42

With the “high-ranking officials” who want to steal Siberia from Russia, Putin means, among
other things, former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who is said to have made a
statement, but this is not documented. Whether Putin has his own sources for this is ultimately
irrelevant. The alleged statement by Madeleine Albright that Russia does not deserve the
riches of Siberia is well known, and many Russian intellectuals will take this as further
evidence that the US is actually openly working to break up Russia. And that would be a
reason for war.

To put it plainly, Ms. Merkel would look pretty stupid if the above statement by Putin were
broadcast on German television during prime time for ten days. Everyone would understand:
there is absolutely nothing left to negotiate. The end. End. Past.

After this admittedly long run-up, we finally turn to the prophesied omens. The long lead time
was necessary because the reader must be made aware of the possibility that in the run-up
to the war he was being lied to to an extent that he had previously not thought possible.

In conclusion, I would like to emphasise that, of course, I do not know what is really planned
in Washington and Moscow. In this respect, this book is only about interpretations. But these
interpretations should be known.

* Note on the Upper Rhine in the German-Swiss-French border area. There is some ambiguity here in terms of
sources. According to Alois Irlmaier, the Russians could only get south along the Rhine Graben as far as Freiburg
(Berndt, Alois Irlmaier, p. 136). According to Irlmaier, it is not entirely clear whether Russian troops from
Regensburg are also advancing along the north bank of the Danube towards Basel. The main thrust would be to
Irlmaier Regensburg-Karlsruhe-Freiburg.

The Prophetic Tradition of the Assault from the East

Since around 1800, prophecies and clairvoyants have been appearing in a number of Western
European states warning of a sudden and completely unexpected military attack by Russia.
This war is often described in such detail that its individual aspects can be narrowed down.
So the Russians are essentially only supposed to get as far as the Rhine, the war is supposed
to be very short - about three months - Russia should lose the war, and what is most important:
there should be no nuclear war in Europe. In my book Prophecies - old news in new times
(2001) I have shown with several methodological approaches that no nuclear war in Europe
can be derived from European prophecy. In the main, forecasts of nuclear explosions on the
European mainland are missing, apart from Paris and Prague. But there were also two nuclear
explosions in Japan in 1945. Nevertheless, the Second World War is not considered a nuclear
war.

European prophecy has long warned of a Russian attack. And a majority of these sources
predate World War II. It's not like some would-be clairvoyants from the 1950s turned their fear
of an attack by the USSR into a war prophecy.

Much of these prophecies date even before 1917, before the communist revolution in Russia.
Consequently, the prophecy of the Russian attack has nothing to do with a possible communist
world revolution. This means that the assumption that a fear of Russia was simply recast into
falsified prophecies is simply far-fetched. Nonsense! Nor can these prophecies be
"misinterpretations" of other wars - such as the First or Second World War. Eventually the
Russians are supposed to get to the Rhine. The main force of the Russians on the Rhine?
This has never happened before. And other details of this prophesied war are also
unmistakable. The duration of this Third World War in Europe would only be about three
months.

According to Marie-Julie Jahenny (1941, France, a stigmatised woman) and the map of her predictions, the
Russians would advance from northern Switzerland to France (see marie-julie-jahenny.fr/image/carteinvasion.gif).
However, the Red Army can only enter northern Switzerland via German territory. According to Marie-Julie
Jahenny, the Russians would push south of Paris almost to the Atlantic and come within about 20 kilometres of
Paris. A close rapprochement with Paris would also make more plausible the predictions of Marie-Anne Lenormand
(see below), which ultimately suggests that the Russians are getting closer to Paris than just to the Rhine. After
Marie-Iulie Jahenny the Russians would advance to Lyon, which in turn coincides with Mother Erna Stieglitz,
according to which the Russians advance along the mountains of Switzerland towards Lyon (Bekh, The third world
event, p. 236). In fact, during the Cold War, the USSR planned to reach Lyon two days after crossing the Rhine!
Based on the map created by Marie-Julie Jahenny, the Russians would actually not cross the Rhine in the German-
French border area, but logically they would then cross the German-Swiss border area.
Whether the Russian troops from Freiburg can still manage the 50 km to Basel or whether they are coming north
of the Danube from the north-east is not entirely clear on the basis of the available sources. As far as can be said,
however, it would be clear that the Russians would not cross the Rhine between Freiburg and Eifel/Bonn/Cologne.
You can find more details about this in my books Prophecies - old news in new times (2001) and Alois lrlmaier - a
man says what he sees (2014).

It should be emphasised that the prophesied Third World War in Europe would not be a
"typical" Third World War with the mass use of nuclear weapons.

Of course, all this does not mean that this war is really coming. Perhaps seers and prophecies
are wrong, no matter how credible and well-documented they may be.

But if you know that these prophecies exist, that these prophecies are not crazy, but part of
European culture and have been for centuries - and if you then follow the news for weeks and
months how the relationship between NATO and Russia continues to deteriorate when
sanctions are imposed, when the West begins to arm itself again against Russia, when well-
known personalities such as former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt and the Pope warn of the
danger of a third world war, then it is clear that something is going on should take a closer
look at what has actually been predicted and what is actually happening in the world.

The table on the right is from my book Prophecies: Old News in New Days (2001) and
illustrates how deeply rooted in traditional European prophecy is the prophecy of an attack
from the East or from Russia.

The list includes 65 sources from the period 1081 to 1991 and is divided into two groups:
On the one hand in those sources in the middle column "R" with the black boxes that either speak literally of Russia
or where Russia can be clearly identified on the basis of certain details; on the other hand, in those mostly older
sources in column "O" with the gray boxes, where it is initially only clear that the attacker is coming from the East.
If one examines this second group of sources more closely, it becomes apparent that characteristics of the "Russian
war" often appear there, such as the outbreak of the grain harvest, battles on the Rhine and on the edge of the
Ruhr area, the brevity of the war, the sudden outbreak and, above all, the reintroduction of the monarchy and the
religious renaissance after the war.

Even if the documentation of some of the sources is unsatisfactory and the quality of the
sources varies greatly, it shows that the sudden attack by Russia is one of the main themes
of European prophecy and goes back so far in the past that it is impossible to explain it through
communism or the Cold War inspired.*
Fig. 8: Prophecy. to attackers from the east
 Focus Russia
A Great Man Rises in Europe
I shall begin the main part of the book on the prophesied omens with a treatise on Vladimir
Putin as an example. After that comes a few basic notes on handling the omens, and then
follows a long list of omens and how they compare to actual occurrences in the present tense.

Putin and the 1999 Solar Eclipse

When in the ominous year 1999 the world did not end and there was no global catastrophe on
January 1st, 2000 because too many computers stumbled over the date line - it was finally
here: the hour of righteous malice and mockery about all the doomsayers.

One of these prophets of doom was France's most famous astrologer, Elizabeth Teissier. She
had leaned far out of the window in connection with the total solar eclipse on August 11, 1999
and based on a Nostradamus prediction (quatrain X/72), which seemed to refer to this point
in time. The astrologer even went so far as to say that she would "never make another
forecast" unless something exceptionally serious happened in the summer of 1999 - a global
disaster or something similar.43

But the catastrophe did not happen. And Madame Teissier continued anyway.
When, around August 11, 1999, half of Europe looked expectantly at the sky and pondered
the future, a few events in distant Moscow that still seemed irrelevant were overlooked: the
old Russian President Yeltsin had done his job, he was ill and most of the time drunk. So a
replacement was urgently needed. The cliques and post-pushers in Yeltsin's environment
agreed on a harmless little figure that would not bother you in business, and Yeltsin presented
this successor to the world public on August 9, 1999. Nobody knew him. It was a pale, slender
figure. Vladimir Putin the name. However, he was only proposed as a successor to the post
of Russian Prime Minister. There was still no talk of the office of the Russian President.

The umbra of the moon then ran on August 11, coming from the west via southern Germany
towards the Black Sea. Moscow was far from the umbra. Nevertheless, there was still a solar
eclipse of about 70 percent.

What was going on in the Kremlin in those hours, when it lay in semi-darkness, is currently
difficult to research. But on August 16, 1999, the State Duma elected Putin Prime Minister of
Russia. And of course one can assume that it has already been ensured beforehand that the
Duma will elect Putin with the desired majority. Did the decisive meetings take place on August
11? Who knows? In any case, you couldn't send a nobody like the pale Vladimir Putin into the
race without some help.

But Putin was still only the prime minister of Russia, by far the most important part of the
Russian Federation.

Then, on December 31, 1999, while Russian television viewers were crouching late in the
warm living room awaiting President Yeltsin's New Year's Eve speech, the shy and almost out
of place Vladimir Putin appeared on the screen instead.44 And Putin told the Russian people -
you have to have a sense of humour - that he was just as surprised as the spectators and his
"friends and relatives" that they weren't hearing the greetings of Russian President Boris
Nikolayevich Yeltsin. But things turned out differently. Because today, December 31, 1999,
the President decided to resign. And he asked him - Putin - to take office. Then Putin
announced presidential elections in three months' time and immediately warned his fellow
Russians that there would be no power vacuum in the transition period and that any attempt
to break Russian law or the constitution would be stopped early. The military, border guards
and other state bodies would continue their work as usual. The state would continue to be
responsible for the safety of its citizens, etc.

So, in mid-August 1999, a nobody appeared out of nowhere, and around seven months later
he was President of Russia, a major nuclear power with 140 million inhabitants. Not bad. Any
mother would be mighty proud of her boy. No question. However, one also wonders: how in
the world did this inconspicuous guy manage that? We now know that Putin was originally
intended as a pawn on the Russian oligarchs' chessboard, but at some point he got out of
hand and then did "his own thing".

Really his own thing? Or were there other string pullers who were a lot smarter than the
oligarchs? The Russian people soon sensed that extremely strange things were going on in
the Kremlin. For example, at the beginning of 2000, when the Russian presidential election
campaign was underway, the Bavarian news radio B5-Aktuell carried an interview with a
member of Putin's campaign team. He said - according to the translation of B5-Aktuell:
Our problem is that no one knows what Putin wants, but everyone senses that he is up to something.

A sentence that should be framed. A phrase for posterity. Because it still applies. After 15
years now! We still have this problem.

Who is Putin?

Before we look at a specific prophecy text on the subject of Vladimir Putin, I want to sharpen
the reader's senses a little more for the mystery of Vladimir Putin - and for what might be
behind it. As we know from his career, there are some indications that there is a long-term
concept behind him. So what does he (really) want, this Vladimir Putin, and what kind of game
is he playing?
It is clear that he plays this game primarily with the USA. With who else? It can also be
assumed that he was already playing this game in 2000, even if his moves were much more
friendly to the West at the time. In any case, one can only understand Putin's game - only
decipher his dance - if one also knows what America is dancing. It takes two to tango.
Since Russia was completely devastated after the collapse of the USSR (ruble crisis in 1998),
it is unlikely that Russia could force a game on the USA. It was far too weak for that at the
time. It is more likely that Russia has been on the defensive in this game since 1991 at the
latest. And if the US, as a "Cold War winner" after 1991, didn't make huge mistakes, then they
may have used their advantage, which means nothing other than making the defensive
Russia's destiny.
 Fig. 9: The mirror, 10. January 2000

But good. You can also play dumb, completely ignore the position and interests of the USA in
a ludicrous historical oblivion, rub your eyes and ask: what does this Putin actually want?

This is exactly what our mainstream media has been doing for years. More precisely, they led
the public to believe that Putin was an enigma. In truth, however, it was about preventing a
public debate about the actual strategy of the USA. It went like this:
At first it was actually unclear who Putin is and what he wants. After all, hardly anyone knew him. Der Spiegel
immediately made this a cover story. On January 10, 2000 he asked: Who is Putin?

But somehow the hamburger-managed news magazine failed to find a satisfactory answer.
Instead, years of guesswork began for the German mass media and others who should have
known long ago.
In 2003, for example, the American political strategist Richard Perle - known as an important
adviser to George W. Bush at the time of the Iraq war - published the book An End To Evil
(roughly: "End Evil Eliminate Evil"), in which, alongside the struggle against terror also turned
to Putin. Along with his co-author David Frum - a former presidential speechwriter - he wrote:

The United States should strive for the most friendly relations with Russia possible. But Russia is not Germany in
1945 - a defeated enemy that we can shape as we wish. Rather, it is like Germany in 1918 - a defeated enemy
that has adopted democratic structures, but where many of the old regime's most sinister figures still wield
considerable power. The Russian Army is the Soviet Army, only smaller. The FSB is the KGB, just with a new
45
name. And Vladimir Putin...well, we still don't quite know who he is,
In earnest? As the? Have all the official and unofficial contacts between the US and Russia,
all the digging by the US secret services, etc. brought nothing? Do you really not know? Or do
you still need an enemy? Do you just want to prevent people in the West, and especially in
Europe, from trusting the Russians too much, becoming too friendly with them? Do you sow
distrust so that one day the already planned break with Russia will not come as too much of a
surprise and will not hurt too much?

But the ambiguity about Putin's intentions also affected Western intellectuals, who one would
assume would be honestly trying to get an answer. For example, there was a review of the
Putin book Putin and the New Russia by author Viktor Timchenko (2003) on Amazon.com.
The reviewer wrote that he had read almost every previous book on Putin and summed it up:
Who is Putin? As Wolfgang Leonhardt correctly writes in his book What can we expect from Putin? Putin remains
a mystery. Political scientist Irina Sherbakova put it this way: "And Putin is... a big question mark."

On December 22, 2004, the Hannoversche Neue Presse (HNP) ran a front-page article on
Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's claim that his friend Putin was a "flawless democrat," ending
with the words:
... We can still puzzle over Putin's true face.

An interesting side aspect here is that the HNP either assumes that Putin's friend Gerhard
Schröder does not know Putin's true face either, or they simply failed to question Schröder in
more detail. Or else Schröder's answer was not to your liking.

When Gerhard Schröder left the office of Chancellor in November 2005 and Angela Merkel
took his place, a consensus had gradually developed in Germany that Putin is a villain who is
not emulating the West. This made it clear what Putin does not want. But what he really wants,
you still don't know. Well, what if you don't want to know the name of the game that the USA
is playing with Russia?

* In the original: »many of the most sinister figures from the old regime«.
At this point, let's turn briefly to former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt. In 2004, Germany's best-
known chain smoker tried his hand at being an oracle and published a book entitled The
Powers of the Future. In it he wrote about US foreign policy:
But the Europeans must ask themselves: Where is this foreign policy leading? ...As unclear as the USA's strategy
towards Europe is - an ambiguity that America can live with more easily than the European Union - the American
strategy towards the Middle East is just as unclear ... The American one strategy towards the world power Russia
is also unclear.46

We don't know what the US wants. And we don't know what Putin wants either. At least we
know that Angela Merkel doesn't really want to know what Putin is up to. O-Ton Chancellor:
"Look, that's not my main task to find out." 47

According to Helmut Schmidt's perception, his insider knowledge and his top-class contacts,
in 2004 practically no German politician knew what game the USA was playing. And the former
chancellor sounds like our political class isn't even trying to find out!

Our German politicians don't know what game the US is playing, but they want us to believe
that Putin is playing wrong. Do you think so? Not me.

Back to Putin: Of course he is a key figure in the whole game. But when he sat down at the
gaming table, this game was already in progress, and had been for some time. We don't want
to forget that. Ultimately, Putin is not that crucial. He can never ever be the inventor of this
game. But as a major player, he's naturally the focal point of what's happening. It matters what
he does and how he is portrayed in our media matters. The portrayal of Putin is also part of
the game.

Since around 2005 and the beginning of Angela Merkel's first term in office, Putin has been
considered an outright villain in this country. In 2008 there was a kind of proof of this with the
war in Georgia, but as a result of the global financial and euro crisis, Putin and Russia initially
lost focus for a long time. In 2013 that changed again.

And in 2014 it was there again in connection with the Ukraine crisis, the question: What does
Putin want? Hardly a program on Russia, in which this question was not at least touched upon.
Now and then the question »What does Putin want?« also became the title of the programme,
e.g. B. in the Munich round of the Bavarian radio on March 25, 2014.
 News Austria, March 6, 2014 Time Magazine USA, March 17, 2014

Newsweek USA, 1. August 2014

Fig. 10: Putin demonization in western media

Moderator Sigmund Gottlieb began:

The developments in Ukraine are confusing for all of us and difficult to assess from here. But they worry many
people here too, and these people ask themselves: What does Putin actually want?

Presenter Gottlieb first asked the question "What does Putin want?" in his introductory words
to the program, and then addressed it again to open the discussion to Horst Teltschik, the
long-standing head of the Munich Security Conference and former advisor to Chancellor
Helmut Kohl. Of course, the question primarily related to the current situation in Ukraine and
what Putin wanted there these days. On the other hand, it is also clear that Putin is dealing
with the situation in Ukraine from a higher geostrategic conception. So the question is related
to two aspects: What does he currently want and what does he want at all?

Horst Teltschik then beat about the bush, on the one hand appealed for some understanding
for Putin, but on the other hand said clearly that NATO is not an enemy of Russia. Meaningful
conclusion: Basically, Putin is crazy, but we shouldn't treat him too harshly. Horst Teltschik's
reaction to Sigmund Gottlieb's question as to whether we are now on the way "back to the
Cold War" was also interesting. Telchik replied:
So - [smiles hard] you hear that question a lot. I think that's an idle question, if you've experienced the Cold War
[...] then the difference is day and night. And I'm hoping that we're going to stay with the day [laughs hard], and I'm
sure we're going to stay with the day. [Finishes his sentence, leans back and grins.]

A number of other examples of public guesswork about Putin's intentions could be cited from
2014, such as a Günther Jauch talk show on March 23, 2014 on the ARD program entitled:
"Putin the Great - how dangerous is his Russia ?” But I don't want to start boring you with such
examples.

Instead, let's finally come to a prophecy text that can be related to Vladimir Putin. In 1988 the
author W. J. Bekh published the following prophecy in On the Eve of Darkness, which is said
to have come from an old refugee woman from Bohemia, who in turn inherited it from her
father.

In the Middle East it will begin [...]

A small nation will do great wrong
and a famous statesman will be assassinated.
A great man will rise in Europe,
and Germany will be ruled by a bull's neck.
There will be a conference between four towers
then it is already too late.
The Russians will look through the Germans' inn windows while they're still sitting quietly over their beer.48

The outbreak of war in the Middle East and the assassination of a well-known politician can
be found in other sources. I'll come back to that below. What interests us here first, of course,
is the man who is to rise up in Europe. Who could it be?

It can't be German, because a "bull's neck" is supposed to rule in Germany. Let's look at it
positively: It's not a woman who governs Germany. Merkel's successor would have to come,
so there's still time.

If Sigmar Gabriel were the next chancellor, we would have our bull necks in terms of physical
stature. Another prophecy (Mühlhiasl, ca. 1820) says that shortly before the war a man would
come to power in Germany who would "skin off" poor people - that is, brutally cup them. Maybe
the old aunt SPD dares to take this quantum leap and finally skins the little man after Hartz IV
with Hartz V.

According to an Irlmaier witness, to whom I will return later, the clairvoyant Alois Irlmaier said
the following about the final phase of Berlin democracy:
If there are so many (politicians) at the zammarenna ofangan (i.e. hold many crisis summits, see 2011/12), then it
won't be long. It's a bad time. ... De politicians have no more morals. Everything is (everything) allowed. De Leid
was as godless as ever. With us, everything goes under and over ie chaotic. The government falls.
The question is what is meant by "the government falls"? Early elections? In any case, falling
sounds more harmless than falling or even being felled.
Back to Putin: since the American Forbes magazine twice dared to vote Putin the "most
powerful man in the world" - in 2013 and 2014 - nothing is more likely than in the above great
man who rises up in Europe, to see Vladimir Putin.
But is that still true if you think about it a little longer? ... However! Because wherever this great
man came from in Europe, he would first have to prove himself in his home country. Great
men do this by solving great problems. That's how they grow. That's how they grow up.

The biggest problems in the European community are currently the national debt, the euro
crisis and the weak growth. Everything is connected. In short: There can only be a really great
man in the Europe of the EU if he also solves the big problems of the EU. Otherwise not.
Otherwise he is nothing more than a would-be big, which is trimmed back to his true dwarf
size after just a few months. If the problems of the European community cannot be solved,
there will be no great man in this community. Look at France and Italy, both countries are
wavering. And this great European cannot come from England anyway, because the English
are currently considering leaving the EU.
Putin, on the other hand, has managed to improve Russia economically and domestically
stabilise, give the Russians back a certain self-confidence, and in 2014, also as a result of the
Ukraine crisis, he had approval ratings of over 86 percent (Focus-Online49). When the ARD/ZDF
morning show on January 28, 2015 once again asked whether new economic sanctions
should be imposed on Russia, the presenter spoke of Putin's "unbelievable popularity ratings"
of 80 percent and more, despite the fact that in Russia meanwhile clearly noticeable sanctions.
In other words, the western media have also given up playing down Putin! The ideal cast for
the great man rising in Europe is Vladimir Putin. And then nothing comes for a long, long time.

Now one may complain that there should be other prophecies for a man who is said to be so
great. Well, there's kind of a precedent on this thing, and that's Adolf Hitler. Only after the
Second World War - apart from a few Nostradamus verse interpretations - did two prophecies
become known in Germany, which predict a ruler who can be clearly identified as Adolf Hitler.
One of the two sources - the so-called Feldpostbriefe from 1914 - is not doubted by anyone in
the know. In the other case of the prophecy of Hepidanus of St. Gallen (allegedly 1081) there
is a lack of documentation, but I also believe this prophecy to be true. It was published in 1951.
Here is the text sequence on the Third Reich from the prophecy of Hepidanus of St. Gallen:

A people will rise up among the tribes of Germania and become a leader over all its brothers [Prussia]. The master
will assert and defend his rights against the servant and the subordinate against his superior. [Weimar Republic]
Then a man will rise from the midst of the whirlpool of factions. He will, without being a support for injustice, yet
with what is right, administer justice against what is right, and from the rising to the setting (of the sun) his name
will be on everyone's lips.
Damned and hated by some, he will be admired by others. Untold misery will be his footsteps, and his name will
live in history amid corpses and death. Nor will what most people believe he aspires to happen. Rather, he will be
the tool of fate, destined to smash the old world to pieces...50

Ultimately, if European prophecies are to be believed, Putin's footprint in history would not be
as deep as Adolf Hitler's. In this respect, one cannot say that there are too few predictions
about Putin. As far as I know, prophecies from Eastern Europe have not or hardly ever been
translated into German or English. If so, then you would be much more likely to find further
prophecies about Putin in Eastern European sources.
But it is also possible that Stalin had such prophecies systematically tracked down and
destroyed. In the case of the Nazis, it is known that they systematically tracked down and
destroyed corresponding prophecies throughout the Reich immediately before the attack on
the USSR. So currently no copy of the prophecy of Hepidanus of St. Gallen from before 1945
can be found. Only in the "Gesammt-Verlags-Katalog des Deutschen Buchhandels" from 1882
is there a reference to an earlier 16-page publication of this prophecy.
Currently, apart from the above prophecy about the man rising in Europe, no older prophecies
are known to point to Putin. But more sources could emerge if Putin "rises" a little more.

To Understand the Signs

Although the title of this book speaks of the "final omens," one should not wait until the last of
all omens has been fulfilled if the worst comes to the worst. That would certainly not be wise.

The focus of this book is therefore on those signs that were already emerging months in
advance and that could be followed relatively easily in our mass media and in general
everyday reality. For this purpose, a basic set of omens is laid out in the book, which one
should not forget or lose sight of. In this context one can speak of »major omens«.

The big signs:

• economic development in Europe
• social development in Europe
• relations between Russia and NATO
• the situation in the Middle East
• the situation of the Catholic Church

One goal of this book is to pre-adjust the reader's "mental searchlight" so that he doesn't have
to keep looking in all directions.
The aim of this book is to create a certain level of simplicity and clarity, because this is the
only way to ensure efficient practical application. I emphasise the focus on clarity and simplicity
at this point because of course there is also an opposing force that creates confusion and
obscurity. People are easily confused because they prefer to believe this or that instead of
researching and checking things. In short: they let themselves be confused because their will
to be clear is too weak. They do not feel that a state of ambiguity weakens them and robs
them of the strength they need to be able to make meaningful decisions in good time. They
don't realise that ambiguity can have such a negative impact in some life situations that
ambiguity could actually be called an enemy.

As already mentioned, the year 2014 was a very special year from the point of view of
prophecy. First and foremost, Russia was restored for the first time since the fall of the wall

perceived as a real military threat (»NATO now sees Russia as an enemy«, April 201452), and
this threat, including the possibility of a world war, was at times even discussed in the most
well-known television talk shows. 2014 is likely to go down in the history books as the year of
a change of era.

In addition, the winter of 2013/2014 was (once again) fairly mild, followed by an early beautiful
spring; both signs of European prophecy well known in "insider circles". Then, practically
simultaneously, two military conflicts brewed in the Ukraine and in the Middle East (Gaza),
which threatened to escalate towards the grain harvest of all places. This fulfilled three more
omens of the outbreak of the great war in Europe: a new Middle East conflict, a serious crisis
between Russia and NATO, and both escalating together just before the grain harvest.

In addition, there was a worldwide and Germany-wide peace movement: On the one hand,
there were worldwide demonstrations against the Israeli attack on Gaza, which, however, were
only rarely reported in our media. On the other hand, there was the peace vigil movement -
albeit relatively small in number - in numerous large cities in Germany as a reaction to
developments in the Ukraine and the associated increasing fear of a major war in Europe.

In short, so many omens have come in 2014 that many people who are familiar with the subject
of European prophecy could not help but get quite anxious at times, myself included. The point
was that z. B. in the economy did nothing »sign-technically« (euro crash, financial crash) and
also subsequent signs did not occur: mainly serious unrest in Europe around early summer.
In addition, there were no signs of an exceptional crisis in the Vatican either.

On the one hand, a surprising number of omens have arrived in 2014 - more than in any other
year in the last 30 years! -, on the other hand, a few very important accidentals were still
missing, not to mention a number of smaller ones.

In this situation, quite a few people who dealt with prophecies showed a certain psychological
pattern in that they were more "guided" by their inner restlessness than observing exactly what
is actually happening and how this fits with corresponding predictions
However, I consider the experiences from 2014 in dealing with the omens to be a good
experience in and of itself. Because you could - not least with yourself - observe which reaction
patterns occur in an almost emergency situation. Of course, it also turned out that a book like
this would undoubtedly cause unrest if the worst came to the worst. That's not a question at
all. Much of this disquiet, however, is explained by the nature of the warning itself. Every
warning worries potential people because it makes us aware of a specific danger. She ends
the carelessness. And it makes sense: the greater the danger that is being warned about, the
greater the potential unrest.

Ultimately, however, restlessness is not the problem at all. The problem is the respective very
personal way of dealing with the unrest. The longer you feel safe, the more willing you are to
be lied to, and the more you fall asleep, the greater the unrest can of course become. From
personal experience I can add: Especially those who consider themselves particularly clever,
whose identity is actually built on the self-image of the knower - those who feel called to protect
others from the harmful nonsense of "prophecy" - would, in the case of the If troubled the most.
For example, I once had a friend in the financial industry with a few thousand clients who liked
to think he understood more of the world. He thought prophecies were nonsense. But he didn't
let me feel that so much. I had given him my book from 1997, but he had not read it.

Then came September 11, 2001. Almost in a panic, he called me that evening and it took me
some time to make it clear to him that - according to European prophecy - this could not yet
be the outbreak of World War III. At first he was content with that. At 2:00 a.m. the phone rang
again. The US had just started bombing Afghanistan. Again he was close to panic: 'Turn on
the television! The Third World War breaks out ...!«

And this is not the only experience I have had following this pattern. Precisely those who are
too quick to make hasty judgments about prophecies are among the most headless in an
emergency.

On the Quality of the Signs

When you have a mountain of prophecies and psychic reports, you will also get a mountain of
omens. Some of these omens will be useful, some questionable, others useless - or even
fictional.

Sign is not equal to sign. You have to differentiate signs qualitatively and you need certain
criteria for this. If you - for whatever reason - favour a certain accidental sign without worrying
too much about its credibility, you can go straight to the shell player.

There are three main criteria for assessing the credibility of a specific omen:
• the quality of the documentation
• the number of sources that refer to a specific sign, and
• the credibility of each source predicting it

The Documentation and Number of Sources

Documentation is usually not a big problem. Much of it was published in book form decades
ago and is not suspected to have been concocted only recently by a con artist to attract
attention here and there. From this it is also easy to count the number of sources that refer to
a certain sign.
Of course, the orientation to printed sources excludes sources that (so far) have only been
published on the Internet. But it is simply too easy to publish any pseudo-prophecies on the
Internet. And even if a source has been published on the Internet for several years, it is difficult
to prove this. Of course, with this exclusion of pure Internet sources, many newer potentially
genuine sources are lost. Unfortunately, the Internet is so contaminated in this regard that it
makes serious documentation almost impossible. I don't mean to dismiss newer internet
sources in a nutshell - privately I find them occasionally quite interesting - but for a book like
this, internet sources shouldn't form the foundation or supporting walls. As partitions, however,
they are occasionally okay. In this book, I also use three Internet sources, albeit carefully
considered and justified.
The search for "new sources" - this in passing - is often inspired by dubious motives. Some
people search desperately for sources that invalidate the "old" ones. The idea that newer
prophecies refute older ones is, of course, half-baked in that there could be newer prophecies
today that in turn invalidate yesterday's new prophecies. This opens the door to total
confusion.

The Credibility of Each Source

A number of important sources have enough information to be able to make well-founded

statements about their credibility, e.g. Alois Irlmaier (1959), Buchela (1983), the Feldpostbriefe
(1914), Padre Pio (1968) and many others. This results in a stable core within the data pool
of traditional European prophecy.

Assessing the credibility of older sources (~ before the 20th century) poses a certain problem,
since often little more than the respective prophecy text has been handed down. This
occasionally means that some authors - let's call them prophecy researchers here - try to make
a reliable statement about the credibility of the respective source on a basis of facts that is too
thin. It's easy to say: "You can't believe this source." Only in the same breath suggests that
one can instead believe the (alleged?) prophecy researcher! Of course you can. Unfortunately,
not always.

In meiner Irlmaier biography53 I show z. B” that in the case of the clairvoyant Alois Irlmaier, a
Catholic cleric named Norbert Backmund, who had also done some work in parapsychology,
abused the trust placed in him as a Catholic cleric to believe in Irlmaier’s global political
predictions to lay an axe. Norbert Backmund tried to do this by suggesting to the reader that
some of Irlmaier's predictions were not credible because they had only grown on Irlmaier's
"personal crap". At the same time, however, Backmund concealed the fact that these
predictions were also made by other seers, including a number of Catholic sources. The main
thing is the prediction of the three-day darkness, which is predicted by several dozen seers
from all over Europe!

As the unloved, willingly and extensively bullied stepchild of science, prophecies are
repeatedly the victims of authors who either overestimate their knowledge or actually act as
missionaries of their prejudices. In practice, this unfortunately means that these authors and
researchers also have to undergo a quality assessment. But of course nobody does that.

One can now whine about these pitfalls in matters of prophecy. However, the basic problem
can be explained in terms of the history of science. A society that has completely neglected a
particular field of knowledge is bound to stumble when taking the first steps in that field of
knowledge. Ultimately, the current chaos in this area has not so much to do with prophecy
itself, but with centuries of social ignorance.

Anyone who has studied traditional European prophecy for many years will know that some
prophecy texts have to be read again and again over time. Because it happens that after a
few years you suddenly come across a prediction that has only recently come true. Particularly
in the field of prophecy, we urgently need to warn against hasty judgments. In the field of
prophecy in particular, it is crucial to be aware that one does not know something and cannot
(yet) really judge it.

Everything has been Predicted…

"Everything imaginable has already been predicted, and then something has to be right."
That's how people like to argue. And the argument actually has merit. However, this line of
argument has two crucial snags: On the one hand, it is usually never questioned who
specifically predicted something, and no qualitative distinctions are made. But everyone knows
that there are good and bad restaurants, doctors, politicians, taxi drivers, car mechanics,
soccer players and so on. The list can be continued indefinitely. Only with clairvoyants (and
astrologers) does the "average person" think in a fit of mental derangement that they can
ignore all the subtleties and blindly lump everything together. When it comes to prophecy, the
general public today is incapable of criticism, as one would expect in the early Middle Ages.
In connection with the supernaturally inspired prophecy one can speak of a regular dumbing
down of the people. That sounds tough. I know. But it hits the core.

The next point is that, just as ignorantly, one de facto refuses to look closely at what specifically
has been predicted. Of course, our mass media also play a major role in promoting this
attitude. Just as they do not speak of “economic war” and would rather bite their lip than use
the term Third World War, they have been keeping the concrete predictions of European
prophecy about the future of Europe secret from the public for many years. In the years 1998
to 2000, for example, I had numerous interviews with all sorts of major German television
stations. Of course, I always explained to them in detail what was being predicted, but in the
end all the sensitive issues were cut out and I was "portrayed" as an implausible freak.

In short: There are numerous different sources with different predictions about signs. The only
way to bring order to this chaos is to separate the useful from the useless and the important
from the unimportant. This book aims to help with that.

Germany's Best False Friends

Have you already sent an email today? If so, then this email was probably scanned by the
NSA, the American secret service National Security Agency. Scanned specifically means that
your e-mail has been checked for certain keywords. Such a keyword search function is so
easy and quick to program that the NSA will never do without this tool.
It could also be that the NSA is comparing the content of your email with the content of your
other emails, or with the emails of your other email contacts. That would be about as cheap
and quick to do for the NSA.

So the US has a trust problem. And they brought that on themselves. So in 2003 they had one
too War of aggression against Iraq opened and closed and lied to the world public live on
television for this purpose on February 5, 2003. And some more. I repeat myself. All known.
Everyone knows that.

We Germans now know that we cannot trust our American friends 100 percent. That much is
clear. We're not stupid. But the well-behaved German calms himself by saying that he can at
least still trust the Americans - well, let's say 75 percent. That should be enough. Hopefully.

Otherwise, we console ourselves with the fact that the US is still the better ally compared to
Russia or even China. And then there is the community of values. And anyway.

The Stern cover page of August 1, 2013, which was published after the illegal mass
surveillance of German e-mails by the NSA was exposed, sums up the trust problem in the
USA well. And it shows how much the image of the USA as a false friend has become part of
public perception in Germany. (See also the star of October 31, 2013 on page 90.)

Fig. 11: the seal of the NSA

 Fig. 12: Stern, October 31, 2013

This image of the USA as a false friend then also appears in the predictions published in 1983
by a well-known German fortune teller at the time, namely Buchela, whose real name was
Margarethe Goussanthier.

Buchela (1899-1986), a - as she said herself - born gypsy, lived near Bonn and began working
as a fortune teller at a young age. For many years - from 1953 to about 1980 - Bonn politicians
used her services as a fortune teller, for which there is evidence in addition to witness
statements (see below). Their best-known client was available information and Buchela's
testimony, according to Chancellor Konrad Adenauer. Today, this contact is gladly denied, but
Konrad Adenauer himself admitted to the German press in September 1953 that he was
seeing a clairvoyant in connection with the 1953 federal election. Although he did not name
Buchela, it is clear that it must be her (see below).54

Press photos such as the one showing her with Helmut Kohl and US Senator Edward Kennedy
prove that Buchela had access to the Bonn political scene (see page 92). Despite such
evidence, attempts have been and still are made to give the impression that Buchela is a been
a charlatan or just had no access to political circles in Bonn, e.g. B. in the current text on
Wikipedia or as in a report from 1969, which presented her as a quasi-fraud.55
If you believe Buchela, Konrad Adenauer did have her name in a small circle disclosed.
Adenauer's State Secretary Hallstein, who is also said to have known about Buchela, is
specifically mentioned. The background to the contact between Buchela and Adenauer was
the federal elections in 1953 and the fact that the CDU leadership was not sure of victory.
Adenauer himself or someone from his immediate environment then came up with the idea of
asking a clairvoyant. In the clairvoyant consultation that followed on the occasion of the
election, Buchela is said to have predicted a huge victory for the CDU, which actually
happened but nobody expected.

Fig. 13: Star of August 1, 2013

Fig. 14: Buchela (1899-1986)

"Fortune teller »whole Bonn politician generations” (recording from 1962)
When Konrad Adenauer went to the polling station in his hometown of Rhöndorf on election
day, he had spilled his bets in the presence of the press, and a day later, on September 7,
1953, one could read on page one of the world:
Adenauer, who voted in Rhöndorf, was greeted by a crowd of a hundred when he entered the polling station "Zur
Wolkenburg" at the foot of the Drachenfels. In a good mood, Adenauer expressed confidence about the election
exit and added with a mischievous smile: "Apart from me, the only other clairvoyant I spoke to knows about the
election result, but she doesn't want me to spill the word just yet."*

At the time, Buchela lived only half an hour's drive from the chancellor, and he probably
wouldn't have found a better clairvoyant within a radius of 500 kilometres.
So Buchela wasn't just anyone. And when Chancellor Adenauer and Senator Edward
Kennedy questioned the seer, she couldn't have been that bad.

Buchela said about the USA in her memoirs, which were published in 1983 by the renowned
Droemer-Knaur-Verlag:
You can call the simple ones above the water [Atlantic] friends, the big ones not. Look it up in your books and you
will find that the great ones have betrayed anyone who called themselves friends and felt that way. Friendship with
the Exalted and the trust you place in them will leave you bitter. [...] The distant will not help you when you are in
need and call them.56

* An almost identical article also appeared in the Bonner Rundschau - edition of the Kölnische Rundschau
- on Monday, September 7, 1953, also on page one.

Fig. 15: 'Buchela with the then Prime Minister of Rhineland-Palatinate Helmut Kohl and US Senator
Edward Kennedy on April 16, 1971 in Bonn

What could Buchela have meant by the "distress" that Germany (suddenly) got into and from
which the USA, contrary to expectations, did not save us?
If you ask me: I see essentially only two possible explanations for this emergency: either an
economic or a military emergency.
Let's start with the economic emergency: Let's assume that Germany suddenly finds itself in
a serious economic crisis. This crisis could affect two main areas: production or the financing
of production. So would the German government call Washington when the assembly lines at
BMW and Porsche stopped?... Of course not! The United States would say, "What's that to
us? Sorry dear friend. Your problems.”

Would the German government then call Washington because Germany urgently needs loans
to save the economy from the abyss? ... You can forget that too! If necessary, Germany could
also print the money itself. The need only has to be great enough for massive money printing
to be politically easily enforceable. We're already in debt anyway. And we're already printing
money so that it smokes.
In short: the mere thought that the USA would come to our aid in the event of major economic
problems (see the euro) can hardly be surpassed in terms of naivety.
So let's come to the military emergency: Of course, as a NATO member, Germany shouldn't
have one at all. Because if something was brewing in the east, our friend and big brother on
the other side of the North Atlantic should have noticed it soon enough. Not true? ... Be honest:
the most plausible explanation for Buchela's sudden plight on the part of the Germans would
be a surprise attack by Russia. Or can you think of something better for this sudden need? ...
A rare disease maybe? Injury-related failures at the soccer World Cup? Feel free to think. And
take your time. This is really important! It is a question of fate.
You can't think of anything but a military emergency, but you're wondering why Buchela
doesn't just call the kid (the attacking Russians) by name...? I'll get back to that in a moment.
Mind you: Elsewhere in her memoirs Buchela expressly tells her German readers that there
will be no nuclear war! But "no nuclear war" does not automatically mean "no Russian attack."
I shall come back to this point.

In any case, Buchela's mistrust of the USA is by no means clumsy anti-Americanism, but her
mistrust of the USA is embedded in a general mistrust of the western victorious powers of the
Second World War, Germany's former enemies, whom we now count among our friends - not
just the USA , but also Great Britain and France:
They [the Germans] believe that the others [the victorious powers of the Second World War] will help that their
longing [for reunification] will come true. Don't believe all oaths. Your own friends are cheating on you and
pretending to put potatoes in the ground when they are actually throwing them away. Your enemies don't want
Germany to become one again, that's too powerful for them. There have been falsehoods in the past that will not
be uncovered before the year 2000. But after that you will put your friends to shame.57

First of all, it should be noted that Buchela got the date wrong. Wrong date forecasts are made
elsewhere. And not only you. Wrong date forecasts are, so to speak, the cardinal error of
clairvoyance per se. Corresponding errors are made by almost all clairvoyants and fortune
tellers, and critics like to cite them as a prime example of the fact that there is no real
clairvoyance. It's easy to imagine, however, that being able to perceive an event in a visual
vision and being able to say exactly when that event will occur are two completely different
things. The comparison is perhaps a bit banal, but in the case of supernatural visions no date
is displayed. The seer knows what he is seeing, but timing is often a matter of guesswork and
speculation.
Buchela also seems to have made a mistake when it came to reunification. But that's just how
it seems. From today's perspective, one can certainly come to the conclusion that there are
political forces in the West who want to prevent Germany from becoming too strong. There
are some indications of this. As we now know, the price of German reunification was the
abandonment of the D-Mark and the introduction of the euro.
That was an idea of the French (see Spiegel article of September 25, 2010:58
»Historical deal: Mitterrand demanded euros in return for unity« ) And as we now know,
Greece was cheated into introducing the euro, and it was the US bank Goldman Sachs that
helped Greece to carry out this scam successfully .

So when the euro was introduced, bad apples were packed into the euro box. And should the
euro actually collapse, it will hit the Germans in particular, as they will foot the bill for the most
part. The end result would be a massive economic weakening of Germany.

But Buchela not only commented on what she saw as the categorically anti-German attitude
of the western victorious powers - and that as a gypsy who was only lucky to escape the Nazis
- but she also describes part of the mechanism with which she believes Germany is weakened
economically. Their predictions show a striking parallel to the euro problem:
In six to eight years [i.e. 1989 to 1991, wrong date again] things will get bad with the money. There will be inflation,
not as bad as it was in the 1920s or 1930s, but still at a level where money can't buy much.
But that doesn't mean that the rulers in Germany have ruined the money. Everything will be destroyed from abroad.
Partly because of the incompetence of the others, partly out of malice to humiliate the Germans because they had
become too powerful for them after losing the war. Even if they act kindly towards you, they have never forgiven or
even forgotten. They will drag you down into the abyss of their impotence.59

Fig. 16: n-tv survey from July 2012

So Buchela "saw" that the German economy was being ruined by money (the currency) from
abroad. In the days of the Deutsche Mark, that would have been absolutely impossible. The
Deutschmark was strong because the German economy was strong, and the German
economy was always the strongest economy in Europe soon after 1945. Buchela is clearly
pointing to a common currency: the money in Germany is being destroyed by other European
countries. A clairvoyantly precise, differentiated forecast in matters of economy is quite rare.

So Europe would be on the bottom economically and, according to Buchela, the USA, France
and England would be to blame. And how should it continue then? Buchela says:
Because a time will come to you when the bottom will be turned upside down and wealth and fame will be a curse
and endanger life. And the fear of the morning will be in all.60
Wealth becoming a curse could be an indication of special wealth levies. Overall, however,
Buchela describes conditions in which the police can no longer guarantee public order,
apparently nationwide. How long remains unclear.

If a society is stuck in chaos for a long time, it will eventually start to reorganise itself at the
local level, in the worst case in a mafia gang or warlord system. However, a regulatory power
can also come from outside or from further away, which disempowers the local transitional
princes and introduces a new order. However, if one is very unlucky, the chaos can also
escalate into even greater chaos, namely when an outside enemy takes advantage of the
chaos. That would then be the war variant under the somewhat trivialising heading
»Opportunity makes thieves«.

But Buchela also says unequivocally:

The last war will not come. Don't be afraid. Never will a mighty flame turn heaven into purgatory and the heat will
burn you. But many small wars will come, between peoples and also citizens of a country [...] But the fire will never
fall from the sky and scorch you. I tell you.61

No nuclear war. Clear case. There's really nothing left to explain. But - what if the Russian
attack in Germany did not use atomic bombs?

At no point in her biography does Buchela describe how Russian troops are invading
Germany, nor does she warn of Russia, nor of an impending world war. That's a relief. But
does it also mean that Buchela didn't see the Russian attack at all?
At the time, Buchela was very well known in Germany and especially in the Rhineland. It is no
exaggeration to speak of "famous" in her case. And it's no secret that the more famous you
become, the more careful you have to be about what you say. This not only applies to
politicians and the Pope, but it also applies to artists, show hosts etc. And of course it also
applies to famous psychics.

Most of the usual fortune teller clients are ordinary, bona fide citizens with no special
educational background, information or analytical skills. If a few 10,000 of them from the
"knowledgeable mouth of a prophet" - that is, Buchela's memoirs - found out that there would
be another war with Russia on German soil at some point, all hell would break loose. A famous
psychic cannot say everything. He can't write everything in his memoirs. And if you try it once,
you're guaranteed to get a call from the publisher with the key message: "There's no way that's
going to work now!"

It takes a good deal of naivety, naivety, and probably a good dose of good old-fashioned
stupidity to believe that a famous psychic can say anything in public. It is known from the
millennia-old history of clairvoyance and oracles that there have always been seers and
oracles who talked around the truth because they did not want to fall victim to the tantrum of
a "ruler". So does Buchela in her memoirs. For example, she speaks of "king" when she means
chancellor or president. Moral: When things get serious, you have to lie, be silent or talk around
it. It is very rare to find very gifted and well-known clairvoyants who are an exception and yet
speak plainly in public. One such laudable exception is the Bavarian Alois Irlmaier, who died
in 1959. However, he also had to pay a price for his talkativeness: he got into trouble with the
authorities and, according to Irlmaier himself, they tried to kill him. On the other hand, he also
benefited from the chaos and social upheaval in Germany immediately after the Second World
War, when there was a peculiar, quite astonishing tolerance and openness in certain areas.

Back to Buchela: In addition to the sudden distress of the Germans and the unheard call for
help to America, are there any other indications in her memoirs that she foresaw the Russian
attack but is hiding it? I guess so. Because why else does she say with such urgency that
there will never be a nuclear war:
The last war will not come. Don't be afraid. Never will a mighty flame turn heaven into purgatory and the heat will
burn you. [...] the fire will never fall from heaven and scorch you. I tell you.62

If Buchela had been convinced that there would be no world war or a major war in Germany
or with Russia, she would probably not have denied the possibility of a nuclear war with such
emphatic force. Or what do you think? Buchela could have simply said that there would be no
war with Russia. Period. Simply that way. Straight. "Never again war in Germany!" Everyone
would have been happy and content. Instead, her biography already bears the meaningful title
I tell you.

Against the background of European prophecy, another interpretation suggests itself for
Buchela's "all clear" in the matter of nuclear war: This war will come, but in Europe it will not
be a nuclear war in the classic sense.

The last war will not come. [...] But many small wars will come, between peoples and also citizens of a country."

Is there any way of interpreting "many small wars" as a major Russian attack? ... In principle,
yes. Because the war with Russia is supposed to last only a few weeks in Germany - if
European prophecy is to be believed. In the Rhineland on the right bank of the Rhine,
especially in the Cologne area, there is said to be fierce fighting, but compared to the length
of the First and Second World Wars, which lasted several years, the Third World War would
actually be "small", three months instead of around four years ( First ...) or around six years
(Second World War). In the various regions of Germany, World War III would last only a few
weeks or even a few days, since it would be largely a war of movement.

Nevertheless, it remains speculation that Buchela thought of the Russian attack when it came
to »small wars«. I'll admit without hesitation that I'm walking on thin ice. But that doesn't mean
that I'm already leaving this thin ice again: so to the civil wars that Buchela predicts: does she
mean civil wars in Europe? Allegedly. Because let's be honest: who cares about civil wars in
Africa or Asia? ... So civil wars in Europe. Incidentally, in the case of Western European civil
wars, one can choose whether the euro will collapse as a result of the civil wars - which would
probably be inevitable - or, conversely, whether the civil wars will follow the euro crash.

Since 1945 there have always been wars somewhere in the world, just not in Europe. The
wars in Europe only started again in 1991 with the civil wars in the former Yugoslavia. All of
this only came after Buchela's death. The Yugoslav wars initially lasted until 1995. Then in
1999 there was the Kosovo war. In 2008 there was the military conflict in Georgia with Russia
and in 2014 the civil war in Ukraine. With the many small wars (probably) in Europe, Buchela
is definitely right.
 World War and Hot Porridge

Suppose Buchela foresaw the Russian attack. Undoubtedly, this war would then have been a
big topic in "their" future. So she would have tried to somehow bring up this subject in her
memoirs. But how? Due to her notoriety, she could not have spoken plainly. She should have
beat around the bush - but in such a way that the attentive reader still understands or at least
has an idea of what she actually means.

Either way, the whole thing would have become a linguistic tightrope walk, and sometimes
everything would have depended on one word. "Forbidden" would definitely have been
phrases like "world war", "war with Russia" etc., and everything that indicates that large armies
will one day fight each other in Germany. Ultimately, Buchela would have had to omit
everything that understandably refers to a war on German soil, without exception.

And it is precisely this limit that Buchela adheres to in her memoirs. It does speak of civil wars
and minor inter-state wars - presumably within Europe - but it even leaves open whether these
wars are actually fought on European soil. It could hardly be more nebulous.

There hasn't been a genuine international war in Europe since 1945. If there were, it would be
relatively likely that one of the countries involved would be a NATO country. And with that, we
inevitably got close to a war between NATO and Russia. However, this interpretation stands
and falls with the assumption that Buchela saw the many small wars within Europe. But if she
means Europe, the small wars in Europe would soon bring us close to a major confrontation
with Russia. Because the more small wars there are in Europe, the more likely it is that
Russia's great power interests will be affected.

If Buchela could only have hinted at this Third World War, she could at least have described
how the world is slipping into this war. And that's exactly what you find in her memoirs - most
clearly at the point where the Germans are suddenly in trouble and the Americans are calling.
A similar clear indication follows below.

Buchela would have had to do without the time after the war as much as possible, because -
if you believe other traditional European visionaries - the prophesied post-war period becomes
completely incomprehensible and therefore unbelievable if you don't know what is supposed
to happen beforehand. So if Buchela keeps silent about the war, she also has to keep silent
for most of the post-war period. And we also find this pattern in her memoirs.

Buchela was a celebrity. The press called her the »Pythia of the Rhine«. The memoirs of such
people are sold in large numbers. This means that the publisher relies on a large print run
from the outset, invests accordingly in advertising and marketing, prints a large initial print run
and, if possible, makes sure at an early stage that nothing goes wrong with the book in terms
of content. This is all the easier when the memoirs are written in collaboration with a
ghostwriter (in this case a certain Johann Kurrth) and you are dealing with an 84-year-old lady
who is not swimming in money at the time and from whom it is no longer to be expected that
she will fight doggedly for every paragraph. If one believes the back cover of her memoirs,
Buchela wrote the book in the face of death.

You must learn the truth about the future [which basically means otherwise you will be lied to].
I, the Buchela, am called a seer. Chancellors and kings, princes and common people have used my gift to learn
who they are and what to expect. I am reporting this for the first time.
The Seer does not only speak for the great ones. I am on the threshold of death and want to tell you what awaits
you, what I see for the future about love and the church, about money and trade, about the hope of healing, about
your superiors, about strife and blood and war and peace.
Open before you will be the life of the gypsy who was gifted — or smitten — with a gift to light you up the murky
streets of your life.64

Fig. 17: Buchela, I tell you, 1983

The aforementioned "small wars" in Europe since 1991 have - what a coincidence - all
somehow have something to do with Russia. Russia is considered an ally of Serbia, and in
the spring of 1999 Russian President Yeltsin warned that a NATO attack on what was left of
Yugoslavia could trigger a third world war. In 2008, Georgia and Russia fought a military
conflict, and Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili thankfully failed to draw NATO into the
conflict. Since 2014 we have been experiencing a civil war in Ukraine, at least with Russia's
indirect participation through voluntary Russian fighters on the side of the separatists.
Relations between NATO and Russia have deteriorated to such an extent as a result of the
Ukraine conflict (and the annexation or secession of Crimea) that the danger of a new world
war is repeatedly whispered and warned.

In short: the question is whether Buchela's "little wars" (in Europe) should be underestimated
and marginalised to such an extent that they completely disappear from view, or whether it is
better to recognize a red thread behind this chain of small wars, the ends of which end in
Moscow and Washington are tied down and being vigorously tugged and yanked. Again, all
of these minor wars were related to Russia: 1991-1999 the secession wars with Russia's ally
Serbia, 2008 the Georgia-Russia war, 2014-2015 civil war in eastern Ukraine.

Elsewhere Buchela describes these small wars (or some of them) in more detail. And here,
too, we come across the common thread between Moscow and Washington:
Month after month and year after year the servants will rise up against the unchosen masters in the face of the
coming sun [East, Balkans, Ukraine, Middle East Israel] and demand [their] justice. Your blood will stain the land
and the pavement. Unruly and not humble, they are forced back under the yoke every single time.
It's arms that will last you. Give them food and a loving arm, and the peace of friendship will soothe the wounds.
But never takes up the axe and sword to take on their adversaries. Such action is ruin for you. There will come
times when they will beseech you in the name of the Lord and of humanity to shed blood for their salvation. Let it
be! Many will suffer because of your inaction, but all will be saved. Evil destroys itself from within.65

The 1991 attack on Iraq, the 1999 NATO attack on Serbia, and the 2003 attack on Iraq - all of
these were "given" to us with reports of ever-increasing atrocities and imminent dangers. Each
time, the order to attack was drowned out in an outcry for the defence of human rights. In
2011, the UN approved airstrikes in Libya based on this pattern. In 2013, a US combat
operation against Syria was averted at the last moment. The West accused Syria of using
poison gas against its own people, and Russia only eased the situation at the last moment by
ensuring that Syria agreed to hand over its chemical weapons. In 2014 there was again a
comparable impulse, this time in the context of the Ukraine conflict, when the Malaysian
passenger plane MH17 was shot down over eastern Ukraine. No bombs were dropped this
time, but tougher sanctions were immediately imposed on Russia.

1991, 1999, 2003, 2011, 2013, 2014 - this clearly shows a pattern that was used immediately
or soon after the collapse of the USSR: war for human rights, bombs for humanity.

There will come times when they will beseech you in the name of the Lord and of humanity to shed blood for their
66
salvation. Let it be! Many will suffer because of your inaction, but all will be saved.

Who is "everyone"? And what would happen if "everyone" is not saved? There would be an
escalation! Buchela warns of the escalation of a conflict in a country X in which the West,
including the Berlin government, wants to intervene militarily "to improve the human rights
situation".

Buchela's formulation remains unclear as to what stage the conflict will escalate to. Is it an
escalation limited to the Middle East only? Are "everyone" just Arabs and Jews? Or does
Buchela mean the really big escalation, which then also affects us? Could this also mean the
crisis surrounding Ukraine? ... Of course, the little word »all« does not bode well, and one can
assume that we Europeans and Germans ultimately belong to »all«.

As far as an escalation is concerned that is "only" limited to the Middle East, the following
should be noted: To prevent this Middle East conflict from turning into a real world war in the
sense of Buchela's optimistic interpretation, NATO and Russia should not get involved down
there in the get in the way. This in turn would require that the states of Iran and Syria be kept
out of this Middle East conflict as far as possible, after all the interests of the West and Russia
overlap in Syria and Iran. In other words, according to Buchela's optimistic interpretation, there
should be a risk of a conflict escalating in the case of the Middle East, but without the
participation of Syria, Iran, Russia, Western Europe and the USA.

Another possibility would be - as already mentioned - that Buchela had Ukraine in mind.

As a reminder of Mikhail Gorbachev's Munich warning from late 2011:

And as a result, the Russian government has said: "We station [...] defensive weapons here and there, and we are
ready to use weapons that will ensure our security. And what does that mean? - Third World War. That means
World War III. And if Russia and the US get back at each other, it will be World War III. This will not be limited to a
local war.
Serbia, Iraq, Syria and the Ukraine - as far as Germany is concerned, they are all in the east
or south-east. And everywhere the USA played (d) along. And not as a goalkeeper or as a
right defender, but as a striker.

Buchela describes a policy pattern that goes by the motto "bombs for human rights," and she
warns that this policy pattern will eventually backfire completely, although it has gone "well" a
few times before.

...Year after year, in the face of the coming sun, the servants will rise up against the unchosen masters and demand
[their] justice. [...] Unruly and not humble, they are forced back under the yoke every single time. [...] There will
come times when they will implore you to shed blood in the name of humanity. Let it be! Many will suffer because
of your inaction, but all will be saved.

Buchela, the fortune teller of »entire generations of politicians in Bonn«, who »Pythia vom
Rhein« warns in barely cryptic terms:
If you keep waging war for human rights, it can eventually lead to a really big war, which then also affects you
Germans. And maybe that's when you'll even find yourself without the help of the United States.

There is practically no point in interpreting Buchela's words to mean that she only meant a
conflict away from Europe - in Africa or Asia, which never poses a threat to Europe. Why
should Buchela warn us about a conflict in Africa and Asia when that conflict is local and will
never reach us?

Yes, it's true: formally, Buchela does not predict a Russian attack. But she foresaw the
geopolitical framework quite well, especially concerning Germany: Germany's integration into
Western networks that would damage Germany in the long term, more or less bring disaster
on it.

When it comes to the question of what Buchela has actually never seen or what she has only
concealed, there is undoubtedly room for interpretation. It is undisputed that Buchela has
veiled some things, after all her choice of words is obviously deliberately nebulous again and
again. It is also clear that as a famous fortune teller she must have come under some pressure,
of which there are countless historical examples.
In terms of signs and warnings, one can say, following Buchela: It is to be feared that the big
war will start with a small war somewhere in the east or south-east, in which the West justifies
military intervention with violations of human rights and where interests are divided of the great
powers overlap - for example in Syria, Iran, Ukraine and the Balkans. The major powers in
question would be NATO and Russia. China will probably be eliminated because it does not
have as great a strategic interest in Serbia, Ukraine and Syria as Russia. But China would
probably back the Russians on the international stage.

At the same time, Germany would be an ally of the United States, and a large part of the
German population would still believe in the United States and their policies - albeit grumbling
- nodded. And if this participation in the war is justified with "intolerable" violations of human
rights, there must be a conflict beforehand that is reported in the mass media. At about the
same time, Germany should find itself on the way to the economic abyss in the wake of
Europe.

To show that Buchela is not alone in her view of Germany's dubious »friendship relations«, a
Dutch visionary by the name of Ida Peerdeman from 1949/1950, who had a series of Marian
apparitions, should be quoted briefly. Like Buchela, who described herself as a gypsy, Ida
Peerdeman belonged to a people who suffered a lot under the Nazis. Therefore, it cannot be
assumed that the following statements are based on an inappropriate partisanship for
Germany:
Ida Peerdeman (December 16, 1949; May 27, 1950 and November 16, 1950):
[The Virgin Mary or the >Lady of All Nations< says:]
"Germany, be warned!" Now I see a triangle drawn over Germany. The woman says, 'The spirit of the triangle
seeks to penetrate in a different way. The people [in Germany] are good, but they are torn and don't know how to
get out. Poor Germany! You become and are the victim of the other great one.’68
Germany in particular must be very vigilant. A false game is being played with him.69
There are others at work to destroy Germany.70

Of course, one could try to invalidate these statements by interpreting their meaning from the
period around 1950. However, the geostrategic framework in Western Europe never changed
significantly between 1950 and German reunification. Whoever had the power to play the
wrong game with Germany around 1950 is likely to have played this game for many decades
afterwards.

Finally, for the sake of completeness, a few other sources on the subject of betrayal and false
friends, whose statements point in the same direction, but which I would not weigh as much,
such as Buchela and Ida Peerdeman:
Seher aus dem Waldviertel (1959, Waldviertel, Austria, published in 1980, for more
information on this source see the chapter »The Fall of Babylon«):
America is also not reliable in the long term,71 You can't rely on the Americans...72 I saw the Russians moving in
here again [Waldviertel/Austria]. ...
I said to myself at the time: What are the Russians doing there again, what are they doing here? We [Austrians]
have the state treaty! Where are the Americans? No one cares, no one cares…73 Contrary to expectations, the
Americans do not interfere [in Europe].74

Nostradamus (1566, France, Centurie IV/22):

The strong military forces are sent home
But the head of government could already need them.
Loyalty promised long ago is broken,
75
He sees himself naked in deplorable anarchy.

The Nostradamus interpreters Bouvier and Allgeier see this as the US troop withdrawal before
the war.

The Russian Surprise Attack

The Russian surprise attack on Western Europe, of course, would no longer fall under the
category of portents, since by that time the child would have already fallen into the well.
However, the element of surprise allows some conclusions to be drawn about the situation in
the weeks and months immediately before the outbreak of war. So the question is what must
precede the attack so that it can come as a surprise to politicians, the military and, in particular,
the German population?

Before doing so, it is worth remembering that the Russian attack is predicted by so many seers
to come as a total surprise, that from the perspective of traditional European prophecy there
is no doubt about this type of attack. The vast majority of the population would be completely
clueless.

Here are the relevant sources for illustration in a table:

Predictions on the sudden attack of Russia

Time source L Quote / formulation (partially shortened)

1790 whale ruff D The upheavals will come very quickly.

1794 button D Then there will be war if no one believes it.

1819 Faudaise f The crisis will come suddenly for everyone.

1820 Mühlhiasl D In Zwiesel, men sit in the tavern when the Reds rush into town...

1872 eggs D In the evening they will say: peace, peace, in the morning they will be
at the door.

1916 Curique f In the evening they will still call "Peace, Peace", the next morning ...

1916 Kossuthany approx. suddenly and totally unexpected

1917 Fatimah Por. When no emperor, king, cardinal and bishop expects it!

1922 Kugelberry east Like lightning out of the blue comes an overthrow from Russia.

1940 boeh. seer Tz Russians look through the inn windows when... sitting with a beer.

1949 peerdeman NL Russia will do everything (peace efforts) in appearance.

1950 wriggler Swz You don't see anything coming, everything happens suddenly.
 Time source L Quote / formulation (partially shortened)

1951 K.a.d.Otztal East. It starts slowly... Then suddenly it breaks.

1959 Irlmaier D The peasants were sitting in the inn when the enemy soldiers
looked...

1968 Mrs. Valdres nor Begins in ways no one expected, v. completely unexpected.

1970 dixon U.S Sudden Annihilation and War (1999)

1975 goldfinch D advance ... in a flash against Western Europe

1981 Korkowski D Your disagreement will take effect. Defence against surprise attack...

1982 Eisenberg D The great supremacy d. godless world communism is unexpected...

1988 anonymous D Red Army, German Land v. Shock without defence.

1995 Phillipas Gri. The great war will come when no one expects it.

L. = country, origin of the source / Tz = Czech Republic / more information on the table see here:76

As can be seen in the »L« column, the element of surprise was foreseen across Europe: in
Germany, Austria, Switzerland, France, Norway, Greece, Hungary, Portugal and the Czech
Republic. And these are only the published cases known to me.

Here is an example of a source that describes the consequences of the sudden attack on the
unsuspecting German civilian population:
Alois Irlmaier (Bavaria, April 1950):
Two large streams of refugees still make it across the Danube [to the south] and save themselves to us [to Bavaria],
but the third stream of refugees no longer makes it across. A ring wraps around them, none of them remain alive.
... So many people will live here south of the Danube that there will not be enough for anyone. Hunger drives the
77
people [city dwellers] to the country, and they get what they need. Much is stolen and plundered.

Should the prophesied Russian attack actually come about, it would be perfectly clear what
would happen in Germany in the hours that followed. Citizens in the eastern parts of the
country would jump into their cars and race west and south - until the first ones got stuck in
traffic. These traffic jams would increase to several tens of kilometres in a relatively short time,
so that in many cases even continuing to flee on foot would not save them. Irlmaier believes
that the highways would become death traps as a result of the crash barriers. The element of
surprise for the German civilian population in the eastern parts of the country can hardly be
illustrated more drastically.

On the other hand, it can of course be assumed that the element of surprise within the NATO
countries would not be the same everywhere. Western geo strategists, for example, are of
course aware that in the event of an effective encirclement policy by the West, the
comparatively weak Russia could launch a preemptive strike almost out of desperation, for
example by conventionally conquering parts of Western Europe and hoping that the USA will
therefore avoid a global nuclear war and its own annihilation take risk. As already mentioned,
it is no longer a problem at all to find articles and films on the Internet, for example on YouTube,
which openly and without hesitation warn of the possibility of the USA and NATO provoking
Russia into a war. This cat is long out of the bag.

I will leave it open to what extent military arguments speak for or against such a surprise attack
concept, because this can only be discussed competently if one has enough information from
the secret service. From a strategic point of view, the surprise attack has been part of the
basics of military strategy since the ancient Egyptians. We don't know to what extent anyone
has the technology to do this these days.

* ... most of the cases I know of ...

In any case, the possibility that Russia "will eventually do something stupid" is well known by
now. To be fair, one must also point out that very occasionally even the established mass
media refer to this possibility. On August 9, 2014, Die Welt published a comment from its chief
correspondent, Michael Stürmer. Three weeks earlier, the Malaysian passenger plane MH17
was shot down and tensions with Russia were at an all-time high. Michael Stürmer was a
political advisor to Chancellor Helmut Kohl in the 1980s, was appointed to the board of the
Konrad Adenauer Foundation, which is close to the CDU, in 1984 and two years later he was
chairman of the research advisory board of the Center for European Studies in Brussels. From
1988 to 1998 he was Director of the Research Institute for International Politics and Security.
He has been the world's chief correspondent since September 1989. Michael Striker is not
just anyone, but has quite a bit of weight in our media landscape.

Under the heading »Loss of control. Time is out of joint« Michael Stürmer wrote on August 9,
2014:
In the conflict with Russia we are [right now] experiencing an escalation from which the protagonists cannot find a
way out. Tactlessness, from the Dnieper to Mesopotamia, has strategic losers all around:78

This corresponds to Helmut Schmidt's criticism of the lack of transparency in US foreign policy.
With these sentences, Michael Stürmer represents a view of the same thing that is widespread
among the population: many people are wondering what the USA has actually been doing
around the world for years when none of this really works? The "war on terror" only leads to
more terror. There is no sign of success in either Afghanistan or Iraq. The example of IS
("Islamic State") in Iraq and Syria shows that the chaos is only getting bigger.

The "normal" citizen wonders what all this is actually about, and why the USA is doing all this
crap at all, and has been throwing billions of US dollars out of the window for several years?
Helmut Schmidt goes one step further and hints at the possibility of a covert US strategy. If
you go one step further, the interpretation falls at your feet: the USA is concerned with the
destabilisation and fragmentation of entire regions, e.g. in order to be able to exert more
dominance in the long term. Divide and conquer. One may discuss this interpretation; In any
case, the core idea is very obvious: chaos is wanted!

Of course, this interpretation is not compatible with our well-bred belief in US integrity. ...
Michael Stürmer continues:
1914 and 2014 - what was intended as a year of remembrance and admonition has become a year of crisis and
fear. One can ask what the escalation on both sides, East and West, has done to statecraft and global responsibility.
Sleepwalkers at the wheel: A chaotic long-term crisis is imminent unless the healthy fear of the foreseeable collision
forces both sides to hit the brakes again.79

The "foreseeable clash" is one of the many "politically correct" paraphrases and linguistic
manipulations of the possibility of a hot war between Russia and NATO, i.e. a Third World
War. Michael Striker continues:
The struggle for the legacy of the Soviet Union has unleashed a low-intensity war from which no one knows where,
when, and how it will end. It is hubris to trust that human reason will win in the end. There are too many
counterexamples. [...] The shooting down of MH17 was both a crime and a metaphor for impending catastrophe.80

This is rarely expressed in our media with such clarity: no one knows how the tussle between
Russia and the West will one day end! When Angela Merkel speaks of her "very sure feeling",
one can refer to it as "occult spheres" similar to the "Fuhrer's" drivel about "Providence".
Basically it's the same: Somewhere deep down in good Angela there's a feeling and we're
supposed to trust that feeling, like she's a Delphic oracle; the Pythia, who holds her head in
the rising vapours from the earth's interior and thus foresees the future - thanks to her very
sure feeling.
Why is it avoided to state the lack of clarity about the outcome of all this so clearly - that no
one knows how it will all end one day?... Because then everyone will realise that it could all
end in a world war. After all, there are only three options: relaxation, stagnation or escalation.
So this is the great "problem-solving strategy" at the beginning of the third millennium: Instead
of solving the big problems, it becomes taboo to paint the devil on the wall. Positive thinking
full steam ahead.

Michael Striker continues:

These days [3. August 2014], Igor Ivanov, former Russian Foreign Minister, and Malcolm Rifkind, former British
Foreign and Defense Minister, described in an unusually serious manner in a joint article in the "International New
York Times" what to do against the danger of escalation to the point of military confrontation.
First and foremost, it is about military restraint and keeping your distance. Because what threatens is a loss of
control, and all crisis management can derail. Beyond Crimea and eastern Ukraine, the region harbours quite a
few frozen conflicts. Military-to-military contacts must therefore be activated to reduce the fear of a surprise
attack.81

A fundamental problem with a surprise attack is, of course, that if the fear of it lingers for too
long, you start to develop counter-strategies. A counter-strategy is then clearly a surprise pre-
emptive strike against an expected, not-so-surprise attack.
On the other hand, the really big surprise attack would of course not come out of the blue, but
would be meticulously prepared for years, so that if the worst came to the worst, you would
know exactly what to do, when, and in what order. The accumulated distrust would only
activate such a plan. But you can't pull such a plan out of the drawer on Tuesday and
implement it on Wednesday. It's more like pregnancy. If you want the child, you have to take
care of it months in advance. And then at some point World politics reached the point of no
return. From then on people still babble about »partnership«; people smile at the cameras, but
there is nothing left to laugh about. In truth, the die has long been cast.
Michael Striker continues:
Data exchange is required to activate »backchannel diplomacy«. Above all, according to the Council of Ministers
a. D., like in 1975, a new Helsinki conference is needed with the task of sorting out the untidy fragments of the Cold
War. The two ministers speak of the danger of nuclear war.
No steering with maximum power development was the signature of the era that ended 100 years ago.
Taxlessness, this is how the daily reports from Tartars in Eastern Europe and the rest of the Middle East can be
summed up, is the signature of the present. The systems of order from the Cold War era are becoming fragile. [...]
The security systems of arms control and disarmament between the superpowers developed from the crises and
confrontations of the Cold War are undermined by suspicion and distrust. The confidence- and security-building
measures of the 1980s, designed to discourage surprise and threats, are least effective now, when they are most
needed. Time is running out. [...]
In Berlin, George Shultz, Secretary of State under US President Ronald Reagan, warned even before the crisis
that Russia was like a wounded grizzly bear: strong, unpredictable and with a long memory. [...]
Could it be that we made bad use of the time after the fall of the wall? [...] Should the sanctions of the West and
the expected counter-sanctions from Russia inevitably be the defining force of the future?
They are not clear on the intentions, and even less so on the implications. They deepen the conflict that they are
supposed to overcome.82
Sure, the sanctions are helping Vladimir Putin demonise the West in the eyes of Russian
citizens. It boosts its poll numbers. This ensures a certain stability and inner unity. The external
enemy welds together. What the Jews and Bolsheviks were to Hitler, "international terror" was
to the United States, the Arabs are to Israelis, and NATO is now to the Russians. But if the
Russian economy slacks off permanently, Russia will still become more and more unstable
domestically. Talented, creative people will leave the country, etc. Russia will bleed dry.

On the other hand, the "West's image of the enemy" would come at just the right time for Putin
when the Kremlin has already decided on a surprise attack. To mobilise the people for a war,
you need an image of the enemy. That said, the level of anti-Western propaganda in Russian
media would be a very notable omen. Unfortunately, our media rarely reports on the anti-
Western propaganda in the Russian media. Although reference is repeatedly made to the
propaganda in the Russian media, it is never actually reported how intensely, persistently and
suggestively the fear of the West is fueled there.

For our Western media, when Putin portrays the United States as the realm of evil on Russian
television, that is always proof that Putin is no longer on the right track. But the fact that 80
percent of Russians tick like Putin - if you believe the approval ratings among the people - is
basically ignored by us. Ultimately, the Russian propaganda only serves us as proof of the
“evil Putin”. We do not (yet) realise that large parts of the Russian people are slowly becoming
"angry" in this sense - at us!

Meanwhile (at the beginning of 2015) we secretly hope that Western politicians will change
their minds about 100 million Putin-friendly Russians and convince them of the correctness of
our policy. The enormous real power factor of tens of millions of Russians is being wiped away
in an act of incomprehensible ignorance, as if they were a few dozen preschoolers who could
be brought back into line with a few instructional videos.
On an emotional level - to put it bluntly - our media avoids letting the local viewer feel how
much the Russian people, and especially the male youth (!), are psychologically attuned and
prepared for war in Russia! Psychological preparation for war does not mean that "the
Russians" will be ready tomorrow to attack us with the Kalashnikov. But in twelve months? Or
18? Or 30?

The psychological preparations for war in Russia could easily be illustrated in our media, for
example by showing in tables which Russian stations reported on which programs over a
certain period of time and how about the West and current NATO policy. Or if you analyse the
Russian Internet from the point of view of (apparently private) war propaganda: number and
growth of warmongering Russian homepages, frequency of keywords, radicalization of the
language, etc.

Our media would have the opportunity to make it clear to German citizens that Russian
propaganda already has a large part of Russian citizens firmly in its grip - if that were the case.
Our media would have the opportunity to make it clear to the citizens here in the country that
the propaganda in Russia could be part of a gigantic war-preparing machine that is already up
and running.

And yes! Of course, it would be deeply disturbing for the population of Germany to realise that
virtually all of the Russian people are actually becoming more and more attuned to war.
Because nothing can influence a crowd as easily and sustainably as another crowd. The
German people would instinctively understand the fear of the Russian people! Because
actually the Germans like the Russians.
Therefore, authentic and comprehensive reporting on the mood of the Russian people plays
a key role in our media. And you don't get that authentic reporting by just interviewing three
Russian citizens on the side of the road and dealing with it in two minutes". It also makes no
sense to devote about half the airtime to any critics of Putin, because it is well known that
Adolf Hitler or the NSDAP did not get 100 percent of the votes in the Reichstag elections in
March 1933. It was even significantly less than 50 percent (43.9 percent). The much-cited
Putin critics would still be there on the day the war broke out. They are completely irrelevant
in the event of war and are ultimately only used by our media to suggest to local television
viewers that the West is "already pursuing the right policy", because a few Russians also see
it that way.
In connection with the general mood of the people in the East, I would also like to mention at
this point - with reservations - that I read in an online reader's comment at the beginning of
December 2014 that the danger of a Third World War was now a "general topic" among the
Polish population. maybe this may or may not be true. However, if our media avoids the terms
economic war, new Cold War and World War III, they will hardly be able to report more fully
on how fears of a Third World War are spreading in Poland and Russia.
Below is a quote from Vladimir Putin on the general mood in Russia: On November 18, 2014,
Putin had just returned from the G20 summit in Sydney, where Angela Merkel had fueled fears
of Russian expansion towards the Western Balkans; a large panel discussion took place in
Russia , which Putin also attended. In response to a question from the audience, Vladimir
Putin said:
... And as for your statement, you said: 'America wants to humiliate us' - did you say 'humiliate', yes? ... that's not
true. They [the US] don't want to humiliate us, they want to subjugate us. They want to solve their own problems
at our expense. They want to subject us to their influence. No one and no one in all history has succeeded in
relation to Russia and will not succeed in the future either.83

To further show how clearly the escalating tensions between Russia and the USA became
apparent in November 2014, and how completely muddled the situation was even then, here
is a report from n-tv about statements made by Barack Obama three days before Putin's above
words:
Obama sharply attacked Putin again. "Russian aggression" in Ukraine is a "threat to the world," Obama said. As
an example, he cited the »shooting down« of the Malaysian passenger plane MH17 [...] in eastern Ukraine.84

Of course, virtually all mainstream media here ran Obama's words. However, as of now (early
2015), there is no evidence proving that Russia was responsible for the downing of MH17. A
final investigation report is »probably« due to appear in the summer of 2015. It has been known
at least since 2003 and Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction" about what to think
of accusations and "evidence" by the USA.
What shocks me personally about all of this is that »one« now deliberately accepts a level of
NATO propaganda where any more informed citizen can immediately see that they are being
deceived: in the case of MH17, there is no evidence of this so far that the separatists in eastern
Ukraine are responsible - and certainly not the Kremlin and Putin.

* An exception is the ARD production »Putins Volk«, broadcast on January 21, 2015.
And apparently in the Netherlands and London (where the black box is "evaluated") there is
no hurry to present such evidence. It seems to me personally as if "one" is now certain that
even the increasing mass of critical citizens will no longer succeed in waking up the rest of the
population, who are dozing off, in time.

Four days after Putin's "prophecy" that the US would never be able to subdue Russia,
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov released the following statement, according to which
the sanctions against Russia are only intended to overthrow the Putin government:
As for the concept behind the sanctions, the West shows that it does not want to persuade Russia to change its
policy, but that it wants to bring about regime change.85

It is clear that overthrowing the Putin government will be more difficult to achieve than
persuading it to engage in constructive negotiations. Moreover, if things were as Putin and
Lavrov portray them, then the West would even have to deliberately torpedo negotiations with
Moscow, for example by making unacceptable demands and deliberately poisoning the
negotiating climate! But of course always in such a way that the western people do not notice
it. To stay with the poisoner metaphor: you have to administer the poison in small doses.
Everything is noticeable at once. That will not do. Then everyone asks: »Why so suddenly?
Everything was fine until recently?”
Ultimately, it doesn't matter whether statements by President Putin, Foreign Minister Lavrov
and other Russian opinion leaders are called propaganda or not. The crucial thing is that you
have to come to terms with the Russian people if they believe and/or feel this propaganda. If
you ignore all this - if you refuse to see the deepening ditch and the deepening distrust - it is
clear that one day things will happen that make one horribly amazed. Note: The "total surprise"
is the final, absolutely just fate of all ignoramuses. And in principle that is exactly what can be
read from the European prophecy: before the big surprise comes the big ignorance. ... Michael
Stürmer continues:
But even the West cannot be satisfied if the sanctions remain the last resort, without a goal or an exit. [...] There is
also a lack of planning as to when it is enough - or too much - and when it is time to start thinking in terms of
interests and balancing interests again and developing a better security architecture, as in the Cold War after the
Berlin and Cuban Missile Crisis [1958 and 1962]. [...]86

Fig. 18: The Sun of July 18, 2014: a prime example of prejudice and pro-Russian hate speech

A serious mistake that is made again and again in emergency situations is not to take the
situation seriously. As a result, certain possibilities and consequences may not be considered
at all. Whether rightly so or not, but as already mentioned, in the course of 2014 an
interpretation key spread widely, according to which the USA actually wanted to provoke a
conflict with Russia. This could be read in many readers' comments on Spiegel-Online and
elsewhere. The Russian surprise attack is by no means the obsession of pathological
pessimists, but now a possibility that people everywhere in our country who are interested in
foreign policy and think for themselves are aware of. It would therefore be ridiculous to
categorically exclude the surprise attack option, and it would be completely irresponsible and
downright pathetic in the interests of a true democratic culture to keep this out of public
discourse. It would be a betrayal of democracy.

As can be seen from a statement by US Vice President Joe Biden at the Kennedy School of
Government on October 2, 2014, it was the US that forced or pushed Europe to impose
sanctions on Russia. Joe Biden:
We presented Putin with an easy choice. Respect Ukraine's independence or face mounting consequences. [...]
True, [...] it was America's leadership and the US President who insisted - and thereby embarrassed Europe time
and time again - that Europe stand up to take economic hits [against Russia] to increase the cost [to Russia]. [...]
Let me say what is obvious: the matter with Russia is not over yet. And there is no guarantee that [the US sanctions
87
strategy] will succeed.

If, like Michael Stürmer, you doubt the sense of the economic sanctions, the core question
naturally arises as to what the USA hopes for from the sanctions?

The US is a big country, has some world-renowned elite universities, and will have several
100 specialists across the country who can say very precisely how the economic sanctions
issue in Russia's case may turn out. The US not only has these specialists, it has had and
needed these specialists for generations, because economic sanctions belong in the toolbox
of great power politics. You have to be familiar with economic sanctions if you are and want
to remain a great power. So, of course, it has to be taken into account that, firstly, the
specialists concerned in the US know very well where the economic sanctions can lead, and
secondly, that part of the plan is to pretend to have no idea where it all ends and like hoping
for a happy ending. In the USA, people will know very well what advantages a situation that
has been politically completely poisoned by economic sanctions brings with it.

And the riddle with the sanctions against Russia is not that difficult either: sooner or later Putin
can be sanctioned out of office, which most political observers in Germany consider
completely unrealistic, or he stays in office and the sanctions cause one continuous
deterioration of relations with Europe and the USA, so that the West can fully adapt to a new
enemy image of Russia. Or else it comes to this war, the name of which is better not to be
pronounced in our oh so free society. Or Russia will manage to circumvent the sanctions via
China. Maybe Putin dies unexpectedly?

Michael Stürmer writes: There is also a lack of planning when it is enough - or too much, that
can be described as wrong. That's naive. Of course there are plans. At least in Washington.
In Washington, too, people will think a few moves in advance. It is not for nothing that the
game of chess is also called »the game of kings«. This is how the king trains his mind.

Once again I want to quote Helmut Schmidt's admonishing lines regarding US foreign policy:
But the Europeans must ask themselves: Where is this foreign policy leading? [...] As unclear as the USA's strategy
towards Europe is - an ambiguity that America can live with more easily than the European Union - the American
strategy towards the Middle East is just as unclear [...] The American strategy towards the world power Russia is
also unclear...88

Against the background of Schmidt's analysis, it must of course be taken into account that the
USA expects a development within the framework of the sanctions against Russia that they
do not want to force their allies on. This reasoning may be wrong. But the thought is obvious.
It should be clear to everyone that sanctions can poison the climate to such an extent in a
relatively short period of time that there is no turning back. Unless some of the current heads
of government are replaced.

On October 25, 2014, the annual Valdai Discussion Club was held in Sochi (Russia/Black Sea
coast) for an open exchange of ideas between Russian and foreign journalists, politicians and
scientists. Vladimir Putin also gave a speech there, and Michael Stürmer was there too. Later
he reported to the world:
»New order or no order?« was the mysterious motto of the conference, with an unmistakable question mark and a
mixture of threat [and] perplexity [...]. One thing is clear to everyone involved: neither Russia nor the West can
afford long-term anarchy without wars and catastrophes occurring. The apocalyptic undertones of the topic and the
talks - including Putin's introduction, which was broadcast on state television [!] the next day - left no room for doubt
that the Russians mean what they say. They do not see the sanctions as a commercial arithmetic example, but as
89
part of an undeclared war of - so far - low intensity, but definitely capable of improvement. [...].

The Russians see themselves as victims of an undeclared war in the West, and are behaving
more and more accordingly, but across the country people are still rumoring about whether
we are already in a new Cold War. Michael Striker continues:
90
The result of this Valdai meeting in a few words was uncertainty, bitterness, speechlessness.
This "uncertainty, bitterness, speechlessness" from the point of view of the Russians has
existed for about ten years. However, our mass media mostly tend to sell the fatal development
in 2014 more or less as a big surprise. Michael Stürmer continues:
It started with the universal suspicion that American machinations [covert, dishonest action to gain advantages] are
behind whatever Russia sees as a threat - not only in Ukraine, but also in the case of oil prices in critical zones -
and didn't end there with the assumption that the White House and the American establishment are concerned with
"regime change." The old lament that America continues to seek more "colour revolutions" on Russia's periphery
and perhaps even at the centre of Russian power was back. Trust, restraint and saving face were only noticeable
in trace elements. Putin conspicuously spared the Europeans in his Suada. Are they always too soft for him, too
compliant, in comparison with the Americans? However, as far as the core of the new conflict with the West is
concerned and how both sides should live with it in the future, new insights could not be gained. [...] Not surprisingly,
the Ukraine crisis will not be over soon. The West will have to brace itself for years of tension, economic
degradation, and strategic distrust.91

It's the same grotesque game over and over again: every German should know by now that
the USA cannot be trusted entirely. But when it comes to the question of how far the US can
be trusted, one does a kind of mental somersault and settles for the fact that the Russians are
(probably) much less trustworthy. In the end, you don't care about the real background and
just go "according to your feelings". But this feeling is controlled by what we learn from the
opinion-forming media, both in terms of pure information and its emotional packaging.

To show that other political observers in the West also see the Russian elite being pushed
into a situation that could result in Russia being "suddenly forced to act" - that is, directly or
indirectly, the surprise attack - here is another source: On March 29 In 2014, n-tv carried an
article with the headline:
Russia cornered
Dax CEOs support Putin
[...] After Siemens boss Kaeser, the CEOs of Adidas, Deutsche Post and ThyssenKrupp also ask for more
understanding and accuse him of west error. They think sanctions are a bad idea. [...] ThyssenKrupp boss
Heinrich Hiesinger said that in the past one had seen that huge changes were possible if they were tackled
together with Russia. He cited German unity as an example. "The process should have been designed in this
mode of understanding," he said. "A situation has arisen here in which Russia feels cornered."91

And? What do you do when you feel cornered?

Western media like to try again and again to downplay the Russians' feeling of being
threatened by an emotional problem of a few Russian politicians. It is shared by large sections
of Russia's political class and now apparently also by larger sections of the population.

Either way, the question of whether or not Russia is actually being threatened (harassed,
encircled, strangled) by the West is of absolutely fundamental, even fateful, importance. One
may regard this question as irrelevant because it is not really discussed in public. But on closer
inspection, she is the key to everything. Either Russia is really a threat or it is artificially
constructed as a threat. If we answer this question wrong, or settle for a wrong answer, we
risk a world war.

Let's round off the series of newspaper articles that more or less clearly raise the possibility of
a surprise Russian attack with another example from 2014. On March 2, 2014 you could read
in the FAZ:
From the corner to attack
Putin and his people are apparently certain that Western politicians deliberately brought about the coup in Kyiv.
Russia sees itself threatened by the West, the country is preparing for war.
[...] Members of Russia's upper house unanimously authorised their President to send troops to Ukraine. In their
entire territory, not only in Crimea. Then parliamentarians rose to the national anthem. Its melody is that of the
anthem of the Soviet Union from 1944 to 1991; in 2000, the first year of Vladimir Putin's first presidency, it was
reinstated at his request. Only the text is different. This end of the special session was highly symbolic: Russia,
which emerged from the rubble of the Soviet Union and continues its legacy, sees itself threatened by the West,
by the United States, NATO, the European Union. The political elite rallies around their president. The country is
attuned to war. [...]
In recent years, Putin's relationship with the "West" has become more and more shattered; the cancellation of the
participation of Western dignitaries in the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games in Sochi is just one of many
episodes in this process. Putin, it is said, sees himself as "demonised" in the West. He doesn't trust US President
Barack Obama. Obama is said to have pointed out to Putin that an intervention in Ukraine would isolate Russia.
Putin, however, apparently already sees himself isolated. Russian political scientist Georgy Bowt has now written
that Europeans in particular would do well to read a childhood memoir from a tape of interviews published during
Putin's first presidency. The boy was impressed by a rat that had been cornered and which, in a reckless and
desperate manner, attacked.92

As you can see, we sometimes play on an emotional keyboard that suggests that one day
Putin will freak out, completely. In the worst-case scenario, don't say you're surprised. The
possibility of a surprise attack was mentioned often enough, or at least hinted at.

As far as the mass psychological situation in Germany is concerned, the "surprise attack"
repeatedly predicted by clairvoyants should mean that the population continues to believe that
the crisis with Russia can be resolved peacefully or that there is no really serious danger. It is
precisely this reassuring insinuation that there can never be a major war that is one of the
main, if not the main, causes of the current lethargy in this country in this regard.

Regarding this collective self-soothing in Germany, here is the statement by long-time ARD
Moscow correspondent Gabriele Krone-Schmalz. In the Günther Jauch broadcast of
November 23, 2014 on the subject of “Answer to Putin: Give in or show hardness?”, to which
singer-songwriter Wolf Biermann was also invited, Mrs. Krone-Schmalz said with muted
indignation:
... and when people keep saying [!] that there won't be a hot war - I don't really believe it [interjection from Biermann:
"Neither do I!"]. Because if you're so sure that you won't get into a hot war, then you're of course much more willing
to verbally arm yourself and keep the spiral tightening. All this is not funny.

Precisely - the perfidious thing about this calming of the people along the lines of "there can't
be war anyway" is that it makes war possible in the first place! You have to realise that Ms.
Krone-Schmalz is not expressing herself as a Russia expert at all, but quite simply as a citizen,
just like the singer-songwriter Wolf Biermann. Krone-Schmalz and Biermann represent only
the tip of an iceberg of deeply concerned citizens who find no real platform in our oh-so-
democratic media.

As you can see, it's easy to imagine that the widespread popular belief that there can never
be a major war will last until it actually happens. And surprisingly.

In this respect, it would not be expected that conscription would be reintroduced in Germany
before the war, or that defence spending would increase significantly. Anyone who wants to
reassure the citizen simply by avoiding the above-mentioned "irritating words" will never, ever
dare that the reintroduction of conscription becomes a major public issue. After all, it would
not just be about the young men spending a few months in the German armed forces to learn
to »shoot«, but based on the weapon systems they are being trained on, you would soon be
able to tell whether they were ready for a war against Russia trains, and not to guard a few
girls' schools in Afghanistan.

And as far as an increase in the German defence budget is concerned, at around 49 billion
US dollars it does not carry that much weight compared to the 640 billion in the USA. That's
only around 7.7 percent of US spending.

To prepare for a confrontation with Russia and therefore NATO rearmament became
necessary, the lion's share would fall on the USA anyway. It would be completely irrelevant
whether the German Bundestag were now arguing over a few billion more or less for the
defence budget.

So Otto and the normal consumer would sit there, waiting for overly clear words from Berlin
and tangible warning signs in real life - keyword military service and armament - and it could
be that these overly clear warning signs just don't want to come, until then all of a sudden »the
Russian is at the door«.
Another aspect worth mentioning in connection with the surprise attack is of course the
question of how much more than the average German citizen does the German and especially
the US government know? The question arises as to whether the Berlin government was in a
quandary immediately before the outbreak of war, in that the danger was recognized, but there
was nothing more that could be done in the short time available and the population was
therefore not prepared, because one way or another would result in a nationwide panic. In the
face of such an emergency, would one have to lie again?

Argus eyes and blind spots

The situation of the US government would of course be particularly piquant in all of this. After
all, it's hard to imagine that the United States, with all its intelligence and state-of-the-art
surveillance technology, "suspecting" spy satellites - including radar satellites that can see
through clouds and canopies even in the dead of night, etc. - would not catch on to any of this
early on .

Of course they would. The only question is, how long before? If it shouldn't just be hours, days
and weeks, but months and years, the question naturally arises as to why the "sole
superpower" didn't use its superpowers and super knowledge in time to avert the danger in
time?

A fundamental problem is revealed here: the more one knows and the more others know that
one knows a lot, the less credible the role of the ignorant and surprised becomes at some
point. This is, so to speak, a curse of information technology. Knowledge means power. But
omniscience eventually bites its own tail.
 Fig. 19: 'The "all-seeing eye" on the "back of the one-dollar bill - an equivalent of the mythical Argus -
and a particular favourite of many conspiracy theorists.

* Argus (Latin.), is a monster from Greek mythology with 100 eyes all over his body.

Should the USA actually have the corresponding intelligence foreknowledge, one would of
course also ask to what extent they share this with the German government? How much can
Angela Merkel know? And when?

In the run-up to the surprise attack, a situation would therefore have to be expected in which
the vast majority of the German population had no idea of the actual danger. Personally, I'm
guessing over 98 percent. That would correspond roughly to what can be inferred from
European prophecy. If such a large part of the population were clueless, the same can be said
of many state bodies. State and people would be clueless and completely surprised.

Although one would assume that things would happen a few days or weeks beforehand that
would lead to a kind of awakening in many citizens, but in the face of such an overwhelming
danger, it simply takes a certain amount of time - not hours, but days - before one even gets
the hang of it and also realised emotionally what is actually at stake!

The prophecy of the Russian surprise attack is thus a pointer deep into our present, deep into
the here and now. In a way, our ignorance is already the vanguard of the Russian spearheads.
If - yes, if the European prophecies should actually be right.

Economic Sanctions
Contrary to any visual war scenes with explosions and destruction or scenes of social unrest,
developments in the economy are often rather subtle, gradual and not so obvious. Just think
of things like inflation. Some readers may therefore wonder how a clairvoyant would have
foreseen phenomena such as inflation and tax increases.

However, anyone who is a little more familiar with the subject of prophecy knows that
clairvoyants not only perceive the respective future circumstances according to their external
appearance, but also other levels of reality, such as e.g. B. the intentions of people, or more
generally the "invisible" causes that lead to external appearances. There is a prediction from
Amsterdam in 1947 by Ida Peerdeman, who also foresaw economic sanctions in the chaos
before the outbreak of the great war. In this Amsterdam (Mary's) message it says:
Suddenly I see Cairo clearly and I feel strange. Then I see all sorts of oriental peoples: Persians, Arabs, etc. The
woman says: "The world will be torn in two, as it were." [...] and [I] see America and Europe lying side by side. Then
I see it written: "Economic war, boycott, currency crises, catastrophes." 93

»Arabs and Persians« could be translated as Sunnis and Shiites, i.e. the two major Muslim
faiths in the Near and Middle East. In the case of the Sunnis, their poles of power are Saudi
Arabia - an important US ally - and in the case of the Shiites Iran, itself backed by Russia.

There is a strategic rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia that has already led to a kind of
proxy war in the Syria/Iraq area. In Syria, Sunni troops (IS) are fighting against President
Assad, who in turn is supported by the Shia Hezbollah militia. The IS has also conquered large
areas in western Iraq.

"Strange feeling" at the sight of Cairo? This can be interpreted in such a way that although
there is no open violence there (yet), there is still rumbling and something fundamentally
wrong, which is actually the case there. After all, there was a coup in Egypt against the
democratically elected government of the Muslim Brotherhood, some 100 supporters of the
Muslim Brotherhood were sentenced to death, and the West, which otherwise preaches
democracy day in, day out, is quite simply silent on the undemocratic conditions in Egypt.

Overall, the situation in the Middle East described in the Amsterdam embassy corresponds
quite well to the current situation (early 2015).

Then the vision turns to the West (USA and Europe), and there is talk of “economic war,
boycott, currency crises”. Although it is not specifically stated who is boycotting whom, since
economic sanctions were imposed on Russia as a result of the Ukraine crisis, one is of course
inclined to recognize the boycott and economic war imposed on Russia in this. It can hardly
be assumed that what is meant is an economic war that breaks out between the USA and
Europe and in which Russia is the laughing third party. In addition, the Russian attack is also
predicted elsewhere in the Amsterdam Embassy94, so that the economic war predicted here
is likely to be part of the increasing tensions between Russia and the West in the run-up to the
war. In addition, the word »currency crises« provides a further reference to the present;
keyword euro.

Anyone who has followed the reports on the economic sanctions against Russia will have
noticed that there is talk almost exclusively of economic sanctions and almost never of
economic war. Here again a case of George Orwellian newspeak, so that the good citizen
doesn't slip his fork out of his hand and his jaw drop. "War" is such an ugly word. Economic
warfare just sounds too much like "real" war.
There are only very few people in our established media landscape who call the ugly child by
its ugly name, e.g. B. Michael Stürmer once again in an interview on Deutschlandradio on May
4, 2014.95

Not many people will have heard the interview on Deutschlandradio, but at least it took place.
So Michael Sturmer:

Sanctions are a strategy to avoid war, but they tend to go in the warlike direction through the normal intercourse
between states. [...] This also applies to the current sanctions [against Russia], but this applies to basically all
sanctions that we know of. Some of these have been successful, others have gone in the wrong direction, downright
frightening. [...] [Sanctions are a] tool of diplomacy or non-diplomacy. [...]
So [sanctions are] in any case not a means of de-escalation. [...] It is an attempt to avoid a military, open armed
conflict [...] by using other, i.e. economic, financial means [...]
In addition, of course - this is the great lasting lesson of Clausewitz [Carl von Clausewitz, Prussian general and
military theorist, died 1831]: »If you go to war, even to the half-war or quarter-war, then you have to think carefully
about what is the political goal? Is it achievable? And when you've achieved it, you have to put an end to it,
otherwise the war - or the sanctions - will become an end in itself.« And that's the last thing you want. [...] [Otherwise]
you end up in a vicious spiral, upwards.
And upwards - it must be clear to all of us - the upward escalation knows no bounds. That's why we have to talk
about escalation limits. [...]
And also the question of when is enough enough. I miss that [currently] though.96

That's a crucial point: the escalation limit. If there is no clarity about this in the public sphere,
there is a danger that one will imperceptibly slip over this boundary and finally be faced with a
fait accompli: war! The more difficult it is to agree on a limit for sanctions, the more unclear it
is where exactly this limit is, and the longer this lack of clarity has existed, the more the
suspicion arises that this lack of clarity is being deliberately maintained. Because if no one
knows exactly where this line is, you can cross it without those who want to prevent it noticing.
Michael Stürmer continues in the Deutschlandradio interview:
Sanctions appear to be mathematically or physically calculable measures that are always under control. BUT
THAT'S NOT THE WAY [emphasised], because there's always an opponent who fights back. [...] If Putin were
dreaming wildly, he would say: »If we stick to THIS, then we will drive a big wedge in the West...« namely, some
say: Now we have enough sanctions and others who say: We still don't have enough sanctions by a long shot. -
97
That would be a grand strategy - but I don't think it's going that far at the moment [May 2014].

So, so - Putin could speculate in the long term on the split in NATO? Well, then the "Putin
understanders" in the West can wrap up warmly. Because those who understand Putin would
logically be the lever and crowbar for Putin to attempt to split the West. As a result,
Washington, London and Berlin would have no choice but to keep those who understand Putin
down at an early stage, to send them to the sidelines and to ensure that nobody plays with
these sleazy children. Putin's 5th column should be isolated and stigmatised. And of course
you would have to make it more difficult for her to access the media. This is strategically
crucial: No media access! And if so, then please only in the back seats, or squeezed in a
corner.

So is beating up those who understand Putin a logical step on the way to war? Are we already
in a phase of psychological warfare that precedes the actual war? Is the point of bashing Putin-
understanders to thwart a Putin's gambit before it breaks into the opposing ranks with queen,
rook and knight?
Side question: What would Putin do if his attempt to split NATO failed? What would his next
move be then?

In the Deutschlandradio interview, the "classic" example of "failed'' economic sanctions from
World War II was cited, in which the US imposed an oil embargo on Japan in order to curb
Japan's warlike expansion in East Asia. Japan's response was the surprise attack on Pearl
Harbor on December 7, 1941. A nearly four-year war between the United States and Japan
ensued, costing the United States 130,000 men.

And exactly that, namely that these sanctions could backfire completely, is also completely
kept out of the public discussion in Germany. Of course, this includes avoiding the word
economic war in the mainstream media, just as it ultimately obscures the fact that we are in
the middle of a new Cold War. Of course you can also talk plain text on Deutschlandradio. But
whether plain text is spoken for a few minutes on such mini transmitters is irrelevant. It doesn't
matter if things are "said once," but if they are heard and understood by the people as a whole.
To do this, however, these things must be addressed in the major media at the right time, and
significantly more than once or twice.

Michael Stürmer says on Deutschlandradio that the so-called West does not quite agree on
how far an economic war should be waged against Russia, but what he probably did not know
at the time was that it was the USA that imposed sanctions on the Europeans pressed against
Russia. That only came out in early October 2014. A quick reminder to US Vice President Joe
Biden:
It is true that they [European governments] did not want to do that. But again it was America's leadership and [...]
the President of the United
States [who] insisted. [...] Let me say what is obvious: the matter with Russia is not over yet. And there is no
guarantee that [the US strategy] will succeed.91

So so. No guarantee. How should we understand this? No risk, no fun? And what if it goes
wrong? Will there then be a new Pearl Harbor under Russian direction? About Europe? In
connection with the unsecured success of the US strategy, Angela Merkel's statement, which
aims at the same notch of ignorance, should be quoted again below.

As an aside, I don't mean to offend anyone's intelligence with all the repetition, I'm repeating
these things because it's about penetrating a certain emotional barrier that builds up when you
hear and read something that you actually can't or don't want to believe.

So once again Angela Merkel:

We know from history that you shouldn't be too peaceful, that you should take words seriously and listen
carefully.
On the other hand, we know that regional conflicts can very quickly escalate into wildfires. For this reason we
have drawn the following conclusion: this conflict cannot be solved militarily. That would lead to a military
confrontation with Russia, which would certainly not be local. On the other hand, one cannot say: because we
cannot solve it militarily, we cannot solve it at all. [...] If we don't believe that our values are worth so much that
they will eventually prevail, then we no longer need to give our Sunday speeches. That's why I have a very
certain feeling that the basic direction is right..."

Chancellor Merkel is hereby using exactly the suggestion already mentioned above:
“Regardless of what we do, there will be NO war. And that's exactly why we can do practically
anything.«
Let's hope that the phrase "There will be no war" won't be the devilish mantra that's dragging
us all down.

And what if the economic sanctions don't work?

Otherwise, the question naturally arises as to what will happen and where we will end up if the
possibility that the chancellor softly hinted at arises: namely, that her "extremely secure
feeling" isn't worth a damn and the sanctions strategy doesn't work?
Also: What would this non-functioning of the sanctions mean in concrete terms? Would
Vladimir Putin hold a victory parade on a beautiful May day in Moscow and let himself be
celebrated as the conqueror of the West?
Does that sound too cheesy to you? No way: Putin would be stupid if he didn't do it. It would
be a unique opportunity for him to enormously strengthen the self-confidence and pride of the
Russians. And of course the Russians would love him for it.

Do you think the West would begrudge Putin this triumph? Of course not. Never. The sanctions
against Russia are not about a "punitive action" trying to get a naughty schoolboy to see
reason. No - it's a fight in which the West has a lot to lose. Either way. If Putin wins, it would
be a sign to the world that the West is far weaker than it appears. Putin's victory would be a
sign to the whole world!

Let's sum it up briefly: War is possibly threatening, this has already begun as a "quarter war"
in the form of an economic war against Russia, but this is not said, printed and broadcast with
this clarity. It is being veiled from the population and it is being hushed up that an economic
war is already underway against Russia. Europe doesn't really want this economic war. But it
doesn't dare contradict the US either. Yes, it doesn't even dare to grumble and bleat loudly
and continuously. One naturally asks oneself: are the Americans' arguments really that
convincing? Or do they offer a stick as well as the carrot? How do you actually convince
someone who really doesn't want to? Do you threaten? Are you scared? Do you blackmail?
do you bribe

In addition to the sanctions succeeding and failing, there is also a third option, which one could
call "the great torment": it could be that Russia, as a result of its isolation, faces years of decline
in which the Russian people will suffer, and - thanks Moscow propaganda - is becoming more
and more angry and finally also thirsty for revenge against the West, especially against us
ungrateful Germans, who were given reunification as a gift, and this despite the fact that Hitler
slaughtered 2,700,000,000 Russians. Perhaps one day Putin will actually be couped, but
unfortunately by the wrong people, and these wrong people will then seek revenge. Have
Berlin and Washington already come up with the right excuse for this case?

The Oil Price Thing

Western economic sanctions against Russia, largely under pressure from the United States,
are intended to put pressure on Putin and force a change in Kremlin policy. That's the official
reason. However, Putin has already stated publicly that this will not work and that (his) Russia
will stand firm.
The West, so it is said, hopes to do enough damage to the Russian economy that angry
Russians will eventually oust Putin from office. However, there are many observers in the
West, especially in Germany, who consider this completely unrealistic. And now (early 2015)
the Russians are reacting to the increasing pressure by moving closer together around their
president.
Apart from the economic sanctions (and sluggish foreign investment), the low oil price is
currently hurting the Russian economy, about 2 Vi times more effectively than the previous
sanctions. It is estimated that the sanctions against the Russian economy in 2014 caused $40
billion in damage, while the low oil price caused $100 billion in damage. Consequently, the
question arises whether the oil price is pure coincidence?
On March 13, 2014, politifact.com brought to this a statement by Michael Reagan, one of the
three sons of ex-US President Ronald Reagan (1981-1989), according to which his father in
the 1980s led Saudi Arabia to adopt the Flooding the world market with oil and thus driving
the USSR into bankruptcy due to a low oil price, which, as is well known, worked out. Michael
Reagan gave the following advice to Barack Obama:
I suggest that President Obama look at how Ronald Reagan defeated the USSR. As we know, he did it without
firing a shot because he had [yes] a [other] superweapon: oil!
Oil was the only thing the USSR had in the 80's that the world was willing to buy - apart from ICBMs and hydrogen
bombs of course. But they weren't for sale.
Since oil sales were the basis of Russian prosperity, my father got the Saudis to flood the market with cheap oil.
The low price of oil devalued the ruble, bankrupted the USSR, which in turn led to perestroika and Mikhail
Gorbachev - and the collapse of the Soviet empire.100

Assuming that the current economic war against Russia transitions more or less seamlessly
into a hot war, it is not unlikely that oil prices will remain low. If the USA really wants to bring
its rival Russia to its knees or provoke it to extremes, it can hardly be expected that it will
withdraw its "super weapon" oil or the low oil price "from the front". To put it more bluntly, if
things really get going now, oil should stay cheap until war breaks out, or at least until Russia
finally decides to go to war.

To illustrate the explosive nature of the whole situation, the following media find: The
International Business Times (IBT) 101 reported on January 22, 2014 that a well-known
("prominent") mutual fund manager named William Browder, speaking at the 2014 World
Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, claimed that the Putin regime could be overthrown if
oil prices falls to $60 (on February 24, 2015 at $58.90 (Brent Crude Oil)). According to IBT,
Browder said: "Putin will be gone within a year."
 Fig. 20: Crude oil price in US dollars 2013/14/15

William Browder worked for Hermitage Capital Management, a Guernsey-based investment

fund specialising in the Russian market. This allows us to assume that if Vladimir Putin were
toppled, there would be big loot.
In early November 2014, when I looked online at popular business sites on the subject of
falling oil prices, I encountered some guesswork as to why Saudi Arabia is not cutting its oil
production, which it has always done, in the face of the current oil glut - the main reason for
the low oil price , if the oil price was too low for him. Saudi Arabia sits on huge oil reserves
and has such a high market share that it can influence the oil price on the world market through
its own oil production.

Two sources are cited as an example of the confusion in the media over the strange behaviour
of the Saudis. First the world of October 31, 2014. It read:
The enigmatic silence of the Arab oil kings
Oil prices are plummeting, traders are unsettled. And Saudi Arabia, OPEC's main sponsor, doesn't say a word
102
about it. In the past, the oil minister was talkative - now he's disappearing.

The second source is cash.ch. The following text was initially found for the headline “The world
is drowning in oil”:
The world seems to be drowning in oil.
Production is increasing far more than demand.103

Eugen Weinberg, commodity analyst at Commerzbank then said in an interview:

»Saudi Arabia in particular, which has hitherto responded to every [!] undesired drop in price with a production cut,
does not seem willing to cut production at the moment. [...]"
Question cash.ch: "Is Saudi Arabia consciously accepting a lower oil price in order to stop the fracking boom in the
USA?”
Answer Weinberg: “At least that's how the market interprets it. On the one hand, Saudi Arabia wants to force the
other OPEC member states to be more disciplined. But on the other hand, they probably also want to make the
fracking business in the USA look as unprofitable as possible.«104

Aha. Saudi Arabia, which is allied with the US and which the US loves so much that it
condones Saudi Arabia's human rights abuses and undemocratic outrages, is simply waging
a small economic war against its lenient and caring military protector.

Should you believe that? Probably not. In addition, Eugen Weinberg himself indirectly warns
against this interpretation, after all it is only an "interpretation of the market" and he oracles,
"one probably wants ...". People like William Browder certainly interpret it differently.

In any case, it is interesting that our media are reluctant to put the low oil price more clearly in
the foreground as part of the US economic war against Russia. Since even the EU sanctions
only came about under pressure from the USA and the USA itself does little trade with Russia,
it could be argued that the USA is solely responsible for 85 percent of the economic war
against Russia: 100 billion dollars in oil plus - say we - 50 percent of the other sanctions (i.e.
50 percent of 40 billion) - i.e. 120 billion of 140 billion.

In view of such numbers it becomes clear that it is not really an economic war of the West
against Russia, but an economic war of the USA against Russia! The US, inasmuch as they
are behind the Reagan-style oil price collapse, is responsible for the lion's share, and the
Europeans are, in a sense, just keeping up appearances. The US needs the Europeans to be
able to put the international law fool's cap on the whole thing so that it doesn't look like a very
banal US great power policy like »from the 19th century«.

Let's round off this small list of media reports on the topic of the oil spill with a report on a
statement by Vladimir Putin published on November 9, 2014105:
Russian President Vladimir Putin told China Daily that the fall in global oil prices was caused by [US] political
manipulation and it is causing significant damage to the Russian economy. While he didn't name a specific country
as responsible, Russian commentators believe Putin blames the United States and Saudi Arabia for the plot, writes
The Moscow Times. "Of course, the most obvious reason for the fall in global oil prices is the slowdown in global
economic growth, which means that energy consumption is reduced in a number of countries," Putin said. »In
addition, there is a political component in the structuring of oil prices. In some moments of the crisis, there is a
106
feeling that politics prevails in the pricing of energy resources.«

Of course, the low oil price is also a consequence of the weakening global economy. But that
doesn't matter to the US, or even to its advantage, because then every additional drop in the
oil price hits Russia all the harder.

Now you're getting impatient and wondering what this has to do with prophecy? Here's the
answer:
Nostradamus (1555-II-France) - quatrain V/16*
On the high price the Sabean tear [= oil, see below] is no more, The flesh of men dying reduced to ashes.
On the island of Pharos by cruisers panic,
Then in Rhodes appears a hard ghost.107

Pharos is the name of the small island off the Egyptian port city of Alexandria, on which a huge
lighthouse once stood (one of the seven wonders of the world) - a reference to Egypt. The
Greek island of Rhodes lies at the extreme eastern end of the Aegean Sea, some 20 km from
mainland Turkey. This possibly points to a Turkish-Greek conflict, which some other sources
also predict immediately before Russia's surprise attack (see page 140).

* Translation and interpretation by Bernhard Bouvier. Kurt Allgeier's translation and interpretation is very
similar, both speaking of an oil price that has passed its peak.

According to the monk Paisios (see page 143), this conflict was triggered by the Greeks
expanding their sovereign zone in the Aegean from six to twelve nautical miles. As a result of
the many Greek islands, a large part of the Aegean are under Greek control, especially the
gas and oil deposits newly discovered there. Turkey, however, also claims these areas and
"has been threatening for almost 20 years that attempting to create new borders could lead to
war" (Wall Street Journal 108). In early 2013, Turkey announced that it would issue mining
licences for a disputed area south of the Greek island of Rhodes. The world also reported
about it at the time:
Dispute over mineral resources / Greece's greed for raw materials provokes Turkey Under the Aegean Sea lies
oil and gas worth 100 billion euros. They would be just right for Greece. But Turkey claims the areas for itself -
and threatens war if it disregards them.109

The Greeks' alleged "greed for raw materials" could also be understood to mean that they are
desperately looking for a way out of their deep financial and economic crisis and are taking
risks that they would not otherwise take. For this reason, too, it cannot be ruled out that the
Turkish-Greek conflict will ignite over Rhodes. In any case, Rhodes could only become a bone
of contention between Turkey and Greece. Other states do not come into consideration purely
geographically.
Humans whose flesh turns to ash as they die may indicate the use of smaller atomic bombs
in the Middle East shortly after the outbreak of the Greco-Turkish War (see page 141).

Of course, one should not rely on a single interpreter for Nostradamus prophecies (here
Bernhard Bouvier). In the present case, however, the translation and interpretation of other
Nostradamus interpreters are very similar, e.g. in Konrad Klee (1982) and Kurt Allgeier (1990).
In all three, the "sabean tear" or the "sabean drop" is interpreted as petroleum. The region
around Saba, an ancient city in present-day Yemen, was known for its oil deposits in its day.

Bouvier, Klee and Allgeier interpret quatrain V/16 as a dangerous military crisis, with fleets in
the Mediterranean at a time when oil prices have peaked and are falling again.

Of course, interpreting Nostradamus verses is a delicate endeavour, forcing most readers to

simply believe this or that Nostradamus interpreter. This is certainly unsatisfactory. On the
other hand, it would be obvious that Nostradamus - of whose visionary quality there is basically
no doubt despite his encryption tricks - recognized the fall in the price of oil as a decisive,
conspicuously atypical and thus very striking sign on the way to the Third World War. The
falling oil price would be a key mechanism on the road to war and a mainstay in the preceding
economic war. The great paradox, the great "incomprehensible" would be that - so the
assumption - the price of oil remains low, although international tensions continue to increase,
and the price of oil has actually always risen in such times.
In terms of the signs, all of this means that the longer the price of oil stays low, the more this
would indicate a firm resolution to finally "get down to business" with Russia.

For the sake of completeness, it should finally be pointed out on the subject of oil that there is
currently (beginning of February 2015) economically justified speculation that the oil price will
soon rise again. This touches on a fundamental question: What would ultimately determine
the price of oil? The global strategic interest of the US or just the economic interests of some
players suffering from the low oil price?

The Ukraine

A few years ago a book was published in Germany about a South African seer of European
descent named Nicolaas van Rensburg (1864-1926). His prophecies were first published in
1995 by Adrian Snyman in South Africa in the national language Afrikaans110 , an English
translation appeared in 2005 and the German one in 2006 111 In the German first edition of
2006, the chapter »The Third World War« begins as follows:

The Third World War:

A Prelude - Rivers of Blood
Van Rensburg warned that things would go badly first in Eastern Europe (Russia) and then in the Middle East
(Iraq).
He saw a horrific civil war in Russia, and meanwhile the world would stand and watch helplessly. [...] The seer
said that this war would start in Eastern Europe (Russia) and then spread to the whole world.112

According to Nicolaas van Rensburg's visions, some time after the civil war Russia would
suddenly attack Western Europe militarily and also advance into the Middle East.113 Like the
European seers, Nicolaas van Rensburg also saw that Russia would lose this war.
As for the civil war within Russia, which van Rensburg does not describe in detail, one naturally
wonders what kind of civil war this could even be if Russia still has the strength afterwards,
with its armies far into Western Europe and the Middle East to push east? This civil war cannot
cost Russia much strength. That much seems clear. Consequently, it would have to be a fairly
limited, more local civil war. This in turn means: It cannot be a civil war in which the parties in
Russia are halfway evenly matched and half Russia is fighting half Russia.

During van Renburg's lifetime, Ukraine was always part of Russia (Tsarist Empire and USSR),
apart from the chaotic years of World War I, the Russian Revolution and apart from the
Russian Civil War, which ended in Europe in 1920 when the Red Army conquered Crimea.

Nicolaas van Rensburg could well have meant the current civil war in eastern Ukraine. Yes,
that's actually the much more plausible interpretation, because in the event of a "real" civil war
in Russia, the question of nuclear weapons would immediately arise. And that in turn would
mean that long before this civil war broke out, the West would do absolutely everything to nip
it in the bud! So van Rensburg's Russian civil war can only be a "small" civil war that does not
seriously threaten Moscow.

There is another reason why it is not to be expected that the seer meant a civil war within
today's Russian state, after all, the term Ukraine only became established in the course of the
Russian revolution and the founding of the USSR (founded on December 30, 1922). If van
Rensburg had wanted to describe the warring parties more precisely, he would probably have
missed the terminology. The northern parts of Ukraine were then known as Little Russia.

In any case, it is true that so far (February 27, 2015) the world, especially Europe, has not
directly intervened in eastern Ukraine. The world is simply afraid that the war there will turn
into a big war with Russia.

Elsewhere in the book Nicolaas van Rensburg is rendered:

... a civil war will break out in France, because the blacks will also pour into this country. But even before these
events, a terrible civil war will break out in Russia, and as a result America and Germany will stand together,114

Another amazing parallel to the European seers: According to European sources, before the
Russian attack, a civil war is supposed to break out in France (see page 182, France - or:
That's the chaos!).

The terrorist attacks in Paris in early January 2015 showed just how divided France is now.
Although there was a demonstration in Paris after the attacks with over a million participants
as a sign of national unity, only a few days later there were reports in the German media that
French teachers did not dare to discuss the attacks with their students because too many of
the students with foreign roots have too much sympathy for the terrorists. The teachers were
afraid that there would be wild scenes in the classrooms. The Siener van Rensburg saw the
problem in France more as a problem with African immigrants, and our media tends to talk
more about Muslims, but ultimately there is no real contradiction to be seen here.

It is also interesting that the seer mentions the "Russian civil war" practically in the same breath
as a kind of German-American alliance, such as we actually have with the Ukraine crisis ("...
a terrible civil war will break out in Russia, and in the As a result, America and Germany will
stand together.«). In her Russia policy, Angela Merkel orients herself relatively closely to the
USA. In general, the Ukraine crisis has led to a kind of renaissance of NATO and revitalised
the alliance.

In short: Even if Nicolaas van Rensburg doesn't mention the term Ukraine, it looks very much
as if he foresaw the civil war in eastern Ukraine. His predictions published in 1995/2006 still
leave a certain amount of room for interpretation, but if you think the matter through logically,
the following picture emerges for van Rensburg from the civil war in Russia:

Around the same time as the Third World War, even before the unrest broke out in France,
there was a limited civil war within the historical territory of Russia, which ultimately tied up
little of Moscow's military capacity, so that a little later Russia could strike Western Europe
with all its might. As for the civil war in Russia, the West is not intervening with its own troops,
but Germany and the US are moving closer together and taking a clearly Anti-Russian position
together.

As far as Nicolaas van Rensburg's predictions for the Third World War as a whole, as well as
for the time before and after, they correspond to a large extent with those of the European
seers. He nuances some things differently, and in places he seems to succumb to his own
interpretations. There is also a problem with the interpretation on the part of the authors. But
overall, his predictions are a confirmation of the predictions of the European seers, not just in
broad outline but in many details. Sometimes he even helps to fill in gaps in European
prophecy and to clarify some things. Only as far as the course of the war in Central Europe is
concerned, one should definitely orient oneself to the European seers. This is how Nicolaas
van Rensburg is rendered:
The future war will be fought mainly between the USA and Russia. It erupts in Europe as the ice begins to melt
(around April/May, year unknown). But by the time the ice has melted, the war that the Russians will start will be in
full swing, so much so that it seems as if the Russians are already victorious.115

According to European prophecy, it would be absolutely clear that the war in Europe would
break out in mid-summer for the grain harvest and not in April/May (see page 145, grain
harvest attack). And it would also be clear that the USA does not play a significant role in
Central Europe. The fact that "so in April/May" is the interpretation of the author Adrian
Snyman (or the translator) is also shown by a film about Nicolaas van Rensburg on the
Internet, which comes from another author. There, the ice melt is not related to the spring of
a specific year, but to climate change, i.e. the melting of the polar ice and the glaciers, which
results in a completely different time reference.

Finally, it should be noted about Nicolaas van Rensburg that he mainly had symbolic visions,
the symbols of which he interpreted in a certain way. The accuracy of his visions and their
interpretations has been proven several times between the first publication in 1995 and today,
2015. Nevertheless, the symbolic visions represent a kind of weak point, because you have
to work your way into the original visions to get a deeper understanding. Nevertheless, the
prediction of a civil war in or on the fringes of Russia, published 20 years ago, catches the
eye, especially with regard to the predicted temporal and global political context.
So much for the South African seer Nicolaas van Rensburg, who died in 1926. What do the
European seers and prophecies say about Ukraine?

I am not aware of any European prophecies predicting a serious crisis involving Ukraine in the
run-up to a third world war. However, the lack of corresponding forecasts must also be seen
against the background that Ukraine was already too far away for most western and central
European seers and therefore hardly usable forecasts about the country can be expected.
And as far as Eastern European clairvoyants and prophecies that are closer to the events
there are concerned, to my knowledge these have not been translated into German or English
- with some exceptions (see below). In this respect, Nicolaas van Rensburg is a remarkable
special event or even a stroke of luck.

* Note by author Snyman or note in the German edition

As far as possible indirect references to Ukraine are concerned, the Bavarian seer Alois
Irlmaier has some references that could definitely refer to Ukraine. Ultimately, however, one
cannot claim that Irlmaier definitely meant Ukraine. That would definitely go too far But there
is still a certain amount of room for interpretation here, which you can explore according to
your feelings. See and judge for yourself:
Shortly before his death in 1959, Alois Irlmaier was asked whether anything had changed in
his big show. His answer was:
It hasn't changed in the slightest. Just because it's gotten closer, I see it a lot clearer. And I also see the two men
who kill the third superior [three assassinations, see below[. You have been paid by other people. One killer is a
small black man, the other a little taller with light skin. I think it will be in the Balkans, but I can't say for sure. ...
After the murder of the third party, it starts overnight.116

Other seers have also foreseen a major assassination just before the outbreak of war (see
page 249, The assassination before the outbreak of war). To my knowledge, however, only
Alois Irlmaier foresaw three attacks.

As far as Irlmaier is concerned, I'm initially only interested in where he thinks the third
assassination attempt took place, since the location could be an indication of a crisis between
Russia and the West that was raging there.

So Irlmaier said in 1959: "I think it will be in the Balkans, but I can't say for sure." In 1950, i.e.
around ten years earlier, it was reproduced on the same subject as follows:
According to Irlmaier's conviction, the third murder already mentioned was to have taken place in Yugoslavia or
Czechoslovakia, although he was unable to say exactly.117

Amazing: Over a period of around ten years, Irlmaier had not been able to clarify where this
third assassination attempt was taking place. If he hesitates between “Yugoslavia or
Czechoslovakia”, one can rule out that he had a vision of the country in question and the
landscape there in connection with the assassination attempt, for example from space, which
is also reported by Irlmaier in the case of a vision. Yugoslavia would have been fairly easy to
spot from the Adriatic coast. And apparently Irlmaier didn't see or recognize any buildings that
he knew from photos, for example the memorable parliament building in Budapest on the
Danube.

* A statement has been handed down by the so-called seer from the Waldviertel, which he made in April
2001 in front of several witnesses, according to which there was a "conflict in Galicia" before the great
war, but without any further details. Today Galicia is part of western Ukraine (eastern Galicia) and
southern Poland (western Galicia).

Here is another statement by Irlmaier on the matter of the attacks:

First they kill the third person, also a high ranking one. Two hams already murdered. Over there he has to believe
in where the sun rises and then it breaks out overnight. The war will be cruel.118

Viewed from south-eastern Bavaria, the sun naturally does not rise over the Balkans (south-
east), but rather over the Ukraine (east). If you bring all of Irlmaier's statements about the third
assassination attempt to a common denominator, you can say: In any case, it seems to be a
question of a Slavic settlement area, but not of Russia. Czechoslovakia, or today the Czech
Republic and Slovakia, can be ruled out, because all of this is in the north of Irlmaier's
homeland of south-eastern Bavaria. Czechoslovakia appears to have been merely a
speculation on the part of the seer. According to tradition, the clearest clue is east, where the
sun rises as seen from Irlmaier's hometown of Freilassing.
You can't get any further on the basis of Irlmaier's statements that have been handed down.
You could say: 50 percent speak for the Balkans (southeast), 50 percent for Ukraine (east).

If you then look at the political situation in the non-Russian Slavic region, two crisis regions
come into consideration at first glance: Serbia (plus the surrounding area) and the Ukraine. At
the moment (February 2015) everything is pointing in favor of Ukraine, on the one hand
because Ukraine is of enormous strategic importance for Russia, but on the other hand
because - figuratively speaking - Putin is unlikely to attack the Balkans before he has Ukraine
in the sack.

In order to illustrate the explosive potential of the Ukraine conflict, the following is an excerpt
from the official homepage 119 of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
There is a statement by Putin that he made at the Valdai Discussion Club meeting on October
24, 2014 in connection with the Ukraine crisis. Putin said:
... and the most important thing I want to say - and I want everyone to hear it - if - and God save us - if anyone tries
again to come to a final settlement by force of arms in south-eastern Ukraine, so this will bring the whole situation
to a dead end once and for all.
The fact is that others are trying to isolate Russia, seal it off. This is evident.

Putin is indicating that if there is a massive attack by Ukrainian troops on the separatists in
eastern Ukraine, Russia will openly support the separatists militarily. That means:
theoretically, the conflict in eastern Ukraine could escalate at any time within a very short time.
The Ukrainian government would only have to launch a major attack on the separatists.

The Strategic Importance of Ukraine for Russia

What is usually neglected in the daily small-small and the whole confusion of opinions is a
halfway objective assessment of the importance of Ukraine for Russia. That's why I want to
let a Western expert speak at this point, whose competence there is no doubt about. I'm talking
about the well-known US geostrategist Zbigniew Brzezinski'.

Zbigniew Brzezinski was US President Jimmy Carter's national security adviser from 1977 to
1981. He later worked as a professor of American foreign policy and as a consultant at the
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington. At times he was also an
advisor to US President Barack Obama 120. So Mann understands something about foreign
policy, and he is still considered an influential source of ideas for the strategic direction of US
foreign policy.

In 1997, Brzezinski published a geostrategic standard work in the USA entitled The Grand
Chessboard, American Primary and Its Geostrategic Imperatives. The subject of the book is
the long-term strategy for securing global US supremacy. The work was published in Germany
in 1999 under the title The Only World Power - America's Strategy of Dominance - with a
foreword by Hans-Dietrich Genscher. For large stretches of the book, Brzezinski proceeds
very clearly and analytically. The book deals with the cold mechanics of power, with basic
strategic rules that both friend and foe must observe.
Basic rule number one is: If you want to rule the world, you have to control the Eurasian
landmass. This is a geostrategic principle generally recognized by friend and foe alike, and it
was not only known since Brzezinski. The heartland of the Eurasian landmass is almost
congruent with the territory of Russia. Western Europe, the Middle East, India, China and
Japan belong to the so-called periphery. While controlling Eurasia does not require a military
occupation of the heartland, it does require a military presence on its fringes. The US now has
a chain of bases in the west stretching from northern Europe to Pakistan - then in the middle
comes a gap with no US bases with India, China and Mongolia - and in the east the US again
has bases in South Korea, Japan and Alaska. All in all, these are enough bases to intervene
militarily, or - keyword economic war - the flow of trade into and out of the heartland can be
controlled from there.

In a way, Russia has the misfortune of blocking the road to world (supremacy) because of its
geographical location. Added to this are the rich mineral resources in the area.
Geostrategically, it makes absolutely no difference whether Russians live there, whether the
president's name is Putin, whether he's a democrat or a communist. It could also be an
emperor or great khan. It is geostrategically decisive that a large, technologically developed
people lives there that controls this globally strategic core area.

* Pronounced something like Zefgeni Breschinski

Under the heading "The Black Hole", Brzezinski writes about Russia in 1997, when it was near
rock bottom after the collapse of the USSR:
The faster Russia moves towards Europe, the faster the black hole at the heart of Eurasia will fill with a society that
is becoming increasingly modern and democratic. In fact, the dilemma for Russia is no longer one of making a
geopolitical choice, because the bottom line is survival.121
Most worrying [for Russia] was the loss of Ukraine. The emergence of an independent Ukrainian state [...] posed
a serious geopolitical obstacle for the Russian state as well. The sudden obliteration of more than three hundred
years of Russian imperial history meant the loss of a potentially rich industrial and agrarian economy and 52
million People who were ethnically and religiously close enough to the Russians to make Russia a truly great and
self-assured imperial state,..122 Even without the Baltics and Poland, a Russia retaining control of Ukraine could
still aspire to lead a confident Eurasian empire.
 Fig. 21: Cover of Zbigniew 'Brzezinski The Only 'World Power

It is interesting that Brzezinski speaks twice of a confident and confident Russia. Confidence
is undoubtedly a good quality. Who wants to deal with insecure people? Looked at differently:
What would the fate of a Russia without self-confidence look like? And what happens to people
without self-confidence? Answer: They will be put in the pocket.

* According to figures from the beginning of 2014, Ukraine has only 45.4 million inhabitants. After 1990 the
population of Ukraine drastically decreased. Brzezinski already worked with an outdated number from
1990. In 1997 Ukraine had only 50.8 million inhabitants.

In any case, from a US geostrategic perspective, Ukraine is not about human rights. Human
rights stuff is silly stuff for people who lack the sincerity to admit that they don't really care
about politics and would rather be lied to. In the case of Ukraine, the US is concerned with
permanently limiting Russian influence.

If Ukraine, including Crimea, were to come under Western control permanently, this would
result in a dramatic weakening of Russia's power projection throughout the Middle East due
to the loss of the naval port in Sevastopol, 45 million inhabitants and the close economic ties
with Russia, a considerable economic blow. Not to mention possible NATO troops in Ukraine.

The next question would then be whether the US would be content with amputating Russia's
influence in the Black Sea region and even more so in the Mediterranean region, or would the
cutbacks mean that a real dismemberment of Russia would begin? Basically, it is already clear
today that the political pressure on Moscow would then continue and "the West" would only
calm down when Western corporations were allowed to enter the Russian economy on a large
scale, i.e. to buy everything there.

Many Russians are therefore now extremely sceptical, and Putin is now saying it very clearly
on Russian television: In his opinion, Siberia will also be up for grabs at some point!

In summary one can say: The Western European prophecies with references to the Ukraine
are extremely meagre so far, but the Bure van Rensburg fills this gap with satisfactory clarity.

The (Western) Balkan

After the end of the Kosovo war in 1999, the situation in the Balkans seems to have calmed
down to the extent that no wars are to be expected there in the near future. On the other hand,
the Balkan wars between Serbs, Croats, Bosnians and Kosovars have shown how easily
armed conflicts can break out there. There is still considerable tension between Serbs and
Kosovars. It is not for nothing that there are still international protection troops in Kosovo
(KFOR or Kosovo Force, currently 740 German soldiers, among others). Real peace has not
yet returned there.

In November 2014, a new unrest factor emerged in the Balkans. The West is again reporting
increased Russian efforts to gain a foothold there. In concrete terms, Angela Merkel's publicly
expressed fears should be remembered:
It's about Moldova [in the case of the crisis with Russia, too], it's about Georgia, if things go on like this [...] you
124
have to ask questions about Serbia, you have to ask about the Western Balkans.

As a result, it cannot be ruled out that another conflict will arise between Serbia and the West,
in which Russia will again become involved. It can therefore not be ruled out that Alois Irlmaier
was correct in his interpretation of the "Balkans".

However, since Russia has no direct land or sea access to Serbia, military support for Serbia
could only be provided via the airspace. To do this, Russia would either have to violate the
airspace of the NATO countries Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria, or the airspace of the non-
NATO members Bosnia and Montenegro, two small states that will certainly do what NATO
asks of them in the event of a crisis: yours Airspace not open to Russian aircraft. Therefore,
the potential for escalation in the case of Serbia is likely to be limited.

Even if Alois Irlmaier gives (ultimately very weak) references to the Balkans, and even if the
seer from the Waldviertel saw a limited conflict in the Balkans shortly before the actual
escalation (see page 277), I consider it unlikely that that there is a new military conflict in the
(Western) Balkans several months before the outbreak of war in Central Europe. In my
estimation, the Balkans or the Western Balkans around Serbia would not be a significant
omen.

On the other hand, what emerges much more clearly in European prophecy is a military conflict
between Turkey and Greece (also the Balkans!) just a few days before the Russian attack.
And this conflict would have to have a longer lead time, which would have to be easy to follow
in the media.

* Western Balkans according to Wikipedia = collective term for Albania and the successor states of
Yugoslavia without Slovenia.

A Turkish-Greek War?
A few chapters earlier I explained why I don't usually work with sources I only know from the
internet. In the following case I want to make one or two exceptions.

In the first case, it is a source I know from an Internet forum devoted to prophecy, which I have
been a regular contributor to for years. I have personally met some forum members in real life
and I know that this forum is an open forum where opinions are expressed and critical issues
are raised fairly quickly by members, particularly when it comes to the credibility of a source.

The following text is from a forum member of Greek descent who had a personal encounter in
the mid-1990s with an apparently very psychic Greek Orthodox monk named Phillipas. The
forum member reported about predictions made by this monk regarding his private life, which
have since been fulfilled. As far as the global political prophecies of this monk are concerned,
they correspond in many ways to what is also known from the other, older European seers.
The forum member wrote about the monk Phillipas:
He told me something about the great war [in Europe] starting in the Balkans, with Turkey attacking Greece. There
is bound to be some disagreement that will upset the Turks tremendously, causing them to launch a surprise attack
on Greece. The whole thing will happen very quickly, but I shouldn't be afraid, because he said something about
the fact that the Turks will quickly leave Greece because they themselves will be attacked by the Russians.125

Russia's attack on Turkey would not be aimed at Turkey itself, but at NATO's southern flank.
At practically the same time, the Red Army would advance towards the Rhine and attack
NATO's northern flank in Scandinavia in Northern Europe. The Turkish attack on Greece
would therefore only take place shortly before the Russian attack on Central Europe. If one
oriented oneself to the second source on this Turkish attack, the monk Paisios (see page 143),
then the Turks in north-eastern Greece would come as far as Xanthi. Xanthi is about 100 km
by road from the Turkish-Greek border and heavy fighting is said to be taking place in Xanthi.
This could mean that the Turks, thanks to the element of surprise, could advance about 100
kilometres to the west, but in principle falter on the first day. The Russian attack on Central
Europe - at least according to current sources - could theoretically take place two days later,
before Europe has even really realised what is actually going on in Greece.

The monk Phillipas continued:

And the Russians will then take over almost all of Europe, and this war will only last a few days.' It will happen very
quickly and many, many people will die. [... but because of the three day darkness, not because of a nuclear war]
No one will expect it at this point because everyone was of the opinion that things are now going up again and
126
getting better.

* This coincides in principle with other prophecies. There, too, it is said from time to time that the war
would last only a few days. I interpret this extremely short duration to mean that the war in each region
only lasts a few days. Otherwise, the overall duration of the war in Central Europe is about three months.
“Things are now going up and getting better” presumably refers to the economic situation in
Greece. An important indicator for this would be unemployment, which would then have to
drop noticeably. (November 2013: 27.7 percent, August 2014: 25.9 percent). However, it could
also be that the Greeks simply expect the economic situation to improve soon because the
political and economic framework conditions have changed significantly, for example as a
result of Greece's exit from the euro.

As for the Turkish-Greek war, perhaps the strangest aspect is that it would be a war within
NATO. It is well known that there has been considerable tension between Greece and Turkey
for years and that the Turks also like to rattle their sabres and sometimes even threaten war
against Greece! But an attack by Turkey on Greece would of course be a NATO defence case.
So Turkey would risk a war with all of NATO. That sort of thing is normally completely
unimaginable unless NATO is in deep crisis or extremely distracted (by Russia?).

I admit that a Turkish-Greek war seems a bit absurd to me at the moment. I can only speculate
about a possible cause: Is there a secret agreement between Russia and Greece, in which it
is agreed that Greece will provoke Turkey to war, so that Russia in turn has an easier time
when it attacks Turkey? And does Russia promise the Greeks Istanbul as their reward? And
would Greece, given its desperate economic situation, embark on such experiments?

Irrespective of such fruitless speculation for the time being, two things could be observed with
regard to the signs: Firstly, how Turkish foreign policy is developing, whether tensions with the
EU and NATO are increasing. The second point would be the situation in Greece. As a result
of the whole debt drama, one could come up with the idea in Greece to enforce the claim to
the twelve-mile zone in the Aegean Sea, despite the considerable foreign policy risks, in order
to use the mineral resources there to reduce the country's debt (see page 143). In this context,
the development of Greek-Russian relations should also be kept in mind.

As mentioned, there is another Greek source on the internet that refers to this Turkish-Greek
war. It is a monk named Gerontas Paisios (d. 1991). To my knowledge, however, there are no
older English or German translations of his prophecies in book form.

The monk is very revered in Greece and is very well known there. A friend of mine was told
about the monk Paisios and his prophecies by the Greek movers when he was moving in
1988.

Here is a German summary of the predictions of the monk Paisios from the Internet - with
reservations, mind you. But this caveat is mainly due to the currently missing translations from
Greek:
A quarrel between allies will lead Turkey to a war. [...] The dispute will escalate, and when it comes to extending
127
the six-mile zone to the twelve-mile zone, the outbreak of war is imminent.

In the chapter on the price of oil I have already dealt with the dispute between Turkey and
Greece over the area south of Rhodes. The Nostradamus verse mentioned there also fits this
time frame.
Turkey will lose almost the entire fleet when attacking Greece, but on land they will push towards Thessaloniki.
The city of Xanthi must be completely rebuilt.128

Xanthi is about 100 km by road west of the Greek-Turkish border on the European route E90,
the main route from Turkey to the west. Xanthi is a local transport hub and would be a strategic
point for the Greek army to stop the Turkish advance. Thessaloniki is about 120 kilometres to
the west.

At first it looked like Turkey would win on every front. Turkey will wage war against Israel.
Turkey will go to war with Russia.
Russia will completely annihilate Turkey.
A third of the land goes to the Armenians, the second third goes to the Kurds and the last third the Russians will
give to the Greeks - not because they want to, but they will have to, [because they lose the war overall] Istanbul
will be back come into Greek hands and becomes Constantinople again.129

Some other older sources of European prophecy predict the reconquest of Istanbul.130
The reconquest of this city forms a small cornerstone within European prophecy and is
symbolic of the prophesied renaissance of Christianity.

Otherwise, the recapture of the Bosphorus metropolis can be explained in such a way that a
Turkish advance towards Greece first takes place and the recapture of Istanbul only becomes
possible as a result of the European-Greek counterattack, which is then perceived as fair.

The reconquest of Istanbul and Constantinople, as prophesied by quite a few older sources,
is an indication of the correctness of the predictions of the monks Paisios and Phillipas
regarding a Turkish-Greek war, even if such a conflict currently appears completely
unthinkable within the framework of NATO.

In view of this Turkish-Greek war, some think they can now conclude that half of NATO must
have disintegrated beforehand. But I do not think so. Because already today (beginning of
2015) the conflict with Russia has led to a revival of NATO: Eastern Europe - especially the
Baltic States and Poland - are relying significantly more on NATO support. And Germany
under Angela Merkel is also strengthening the role of NATO. NATO is currently definitely in a
phase of strengthening and not of weakness.... The monk Paisios continued:
The Europeans and the Americans will initially stay out of the conflict. But as more and more Russian forces and
navy move south across the Black Sea, Western powers are growing restless.131

I'm sceptical again. In view of the completely deadlocked situation between Russia and
NATO since 2014, the western alliance is unlikely to stand still in such a situation. In order to
be able to judge this statement more precisely, one would need the original Greek text. So
far only a German summary is available. And summaries are such a thing. Important details
are often missing, or details are summarised incorrectly.

The Russians annihilate Turkey and halt their advance at the gates of Jerusalem. They will occupy this zone for
six months (!).
The European states (FR / GB / D / ES / IT and some others) as well as the USA give the Russians an ultimatum
to withdraw from Israel.
The ultimatum expires and the Russians do not withdraw. The Mediterranean fills with fleets from all nations.132
Here, too, some things seem imprecise to me. However, the fleet concentrations in the
Mediterranean then reappear in other European sources, including a source from the 1970s
attributed to Alois Irlmaier (see page 162). That with the fleets is an indication of the
authenticity of this prediction, since mutual influence (Greece/Germany) is rather improbable.

An increasing concentration of fleets in the Mediterranean would be one of the very last signs
and in purely practical terms a very useful one as all the ships would only arrive there
gradually, which would certainly be reported in the media. A push by Russia towards Israel
also appears in other sources (see page 163).

Finally, I would like to quote a prediction made by Ida Peerdeman (Amsterdam) in 1950 on
the subject of the Turkish-Greek war, a prediction which, taken on its own, is practically
completely incomprehensible and which Ida Peerdeman probably did not understand herself,
since the complete context of the vision is unclear. However, the above predictions about the
Turkish-Greek war make this vision meaningful:

Ida Peerdeman (December 10, 1950, Amsterdam):

[Mary or "the woman" says:] "Turkey, are you paying attention?"
Then I see the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles. I have to do something strange. I must paw my hands and place
them firmly on the map. I have to hold my arms like the paws of an animal. The woman says: »You should only
present it. You are ready to pounce like an animal standing with two paws on Europa.«
Now I also see an animal that wants to jump on Europa. It looks left and right, but then very slowly withdraws its
paws.133

"The woman" barks at Turkey like a naughty child who is about to commit a colossal blunder.
In connection with other prophecies, it can be said that Turkey has hardly decided to attack
Greece before it has to stop again because it is being attacked by Russia - that would be
looking to the other side. The end of the story would be the loss of Istanbul and probably also
other parts of the country such as the Kurdish areas and former areas of the Armenians in the
east.

Grain Harvest Attack

The attack during the grain harvest or the grain harvest as a harbinger of the outbreak of war
is not particularly helpful in terms of precaution, after all the warning time would then gradually
become extremely short.

On the other hand, the forecasts for an attack during the grain harvest are of great use,
because based on the very convincing sources in this case, one can assume that the war in
Central Europe will break out at the grain harvest, or at the end of July/beginning of August of
a year.
Thanks to this well-secured point in time, there is a stable fulcrum for the more precise
chronological classification of other prophesied omens and events in the war year. In addition,
with the help of this dating one could rule out that the war in Central Europe broke out in the
other ten months: in January-June, and in September-December - which would be enormously
valuable from a psychological point of view, since one could certainly relax better at this time,
assuming one wants to believe what European prophecy predicts at all.
To strengthen the reader's confidence in the timing of the grain harvest, here are some quotes
from the clairvoyants. First, two statements by Alois Irlmaier; the first statement dates from
1949, the second from the end of 1948:
There will be another big war [in Germany] when the grain is ripe134
The ears of corn... stand high on the stalk.... Then the third murder occurs. [...] After the third murder it starts!...135

In addition, two other statements by Alois Irlmaier have been handed down, which at first
glance read as if the seer meant a different time of the year. But that's just how it seems. I
examined this in more detail in my book about Alois Irlmaier. 136 The war breaks out - also
after Irlmaier - for the grain harvest.
The closest source on grain harvest or midsummer is the Norwegian fisherman Anton
Johansson (1907). Johansson belongs, so to speak, to the premier league of European
clairvoyants. He achieved the rare feat of having his correct predictions for the First World War
printed in a Swedish daily newspaper - the Svenska Dagbladet of March 4, 1914 - five months
before the outbreak of the war. In it, Johansson named the warring parties:
War between Germany and Austria on the one hand and Russia, France and England on the other [...] Belgium is
also included...

He also predicted the outcome of the war (the defeat of Germany and the loss of Alsace-
Lorraine), and also the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939). Although his visions were ignored well
into the First World War, a book of his predictions later became a bestseller in Scandinavia.
But Johansson's vision stretched much further into the future. So he described in great detail
a Russian attack on Norway and Sweden, saying:
The war broke out during the summer. ... It was also summer in the northern parts of Sweden.137

The beginning of summer is traditionally celebrated around June 24th in northern Sweden. If
one interprets Johansson to mean that he means the middle rather than the beginning of
summer, the point in time coincides with the Central European sources.

The will of the fleeing pope (1701, Wismar) states:

138
War will break out when the ears of corn are full.

This source appears to mix elements of World War I, World War II and Third, but
characteristics of World War III predominate, such as: the absence of the Pope in Rome at
the onset of the catastrophe; the victorious ruler is a devout Christian; the war is followed by
a fundamental moral renewal and the re-establishment of a "divine order in church, state and
family".

Wessel Dietrich Eilert (1833, Westphalia):

This war will break out from the east. ... This war will break out very quickly. In the evening they will say: peace,
peace, and there is no peace, and in the morning the enemies are already at the door; but it will pass quickly... In
the year when the war breaks out, spring will be so beautiful that in April the cows will already be walking in the full
139
grass. It will still be possible to barter the corn, but no longer the oats.

Frau Landinger (1957, northern Upper Palatinate):

140
»Grain and wheat were brought in, the oats were ready in many places. Then came the war.«
The oat harvest takes place on average about a week after the wheat harvest. The Eilert and
Landinger sources do not appear to be mutually influenced. The sources are quite different in
type.

Adolf Schwaer (1952/1955, Black Forest, about 20 km east of Freiburg):

I saw that the barley harvest was good. I hardly saw any rye, oats were good. After the harvest, refugees from the
east came driving like mad in wagons.
When the long farmer mows the rich winter rye that is on the way to the Zwerisberg [ten km east of Freiburg]
(August), the Russian jet fighter will roar over us.141

Theodor Beykirch's »Prophet Voices« (1622):

The month of May will prepare for war in earnest; but it's not the time for that yet.
The month of June will also invite war;
but then it's not time.
The month of July will act gravely and cruelly,
that many have to say goodbye to their wives and children.
In August, war will be heard from all corners of the world.
September and October will bring great bloodshed.
142
Marvels will be seen in November.

This text from Theodor Beykirch's »The Voices of the Prophets« is nebulous in places, but
nevertheless corresponds well with the sequence of events from other sources. The wonders
of November could be a paraphrase for the events surrounding the three-day eclipse. The
Middle East crisis and the outbreak of the Middle East war could fall into the May to July phase.
At the end of July, war would break out in Central Europe.

Forecasts for the time of year when war breaks out:

PAB = private archive Berndt
The sources are roughly sorted according to their credibility; the assessment is partly subjective.
In my opinion, sources 1 to 7 are sufficient as a basis for assessment.

If in doubt, you should of course go by the status of the harvest and not stubbornly by the
calendar. The quality of the sources from the table - including the documentation - is mixed in
a number of cases. Theoretically, however, a single source or a few very good sources would
suffice. And they are always there.

Focus on the Middle East

 A new Middle East war

The Third World War - at least according to European prophecy - would begin (alongside the
Turkish-Greek war) with a hot war in the Middle East. In my opinion, it is not possible to say
exactly how long before the war in Central Europe this Middle East war broke out, but probably
only a few days, at most a few weeks before.

On the other hand, what is becoming more or less clear is that Israel would be involved in this
war, that this war was already looming a few weeks or months beforehand and that there are
recent efforts to prevent this war or at least the escalation of a Middle East war that has been
relatively limited until then .

In view of Israel's military superiority and past experience, the actual initiative in the conflict
should come from Israel, possibly officially justified by a previous major act of terrorism by the
Arabs.

The Arab Spring

The so-called Arab Spring is now a bit in the past, but I would still like to go into it briefly, since
it may already be part of the prelude to the Third World War and the predicted Middle East
war: If you believe the sources and my interpretations are correct, then it was the Arab Spring
is also foreseen (see below).

The current civil wars in Syria and Libya and the political situation in Egypt go back to the Arab
Spring, which has since failed. This began in Tunisia at the end of 2010 with a government
overthrow, and was followed by a series of popular uprisings in the Arab world, which were
carried by the hope of democratisation and an improvement in the economic situation and
future prospects for young people. But instead of more justice and prosperity, the result of the
Arab Spring is a dramatic increase in chaos in the Arab world, and economic conditions have
continued to deteriorate in the countries concerned: particularly Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and
Syria.

Some observers are now interpreting the chain of coups and uprisings in the Arab world as
planned long in advance. Behind this is an Israeli-American strategy whose goal is to fragment
the entire Middle East into small and weak political units in order to better control the entire
region. A similar plan by Israel is known as the Yinon Plan, and it was published as early as
1982.144

For Israel, the particular benefit of such a strategy - if implemented - would be that Israel could
permanently prevent the emergence of an industrially strong state (like Iraq once did) in the
Arab world that would have the ability to engage Israel in a conventional arms race. Israel
could never endure such a conventional arms race because its population is far too small.
This threat to Israel from real industrial potential in Arabia is also almost never mentioned in
our media: In the medium term, Israel is not (only) threatened by (possible) Iranian nuclear
weapons, but by an effective industrial potential in a larger Islamic state in its immediate
vicinity. The crux of the matter here: The real threat to Israel in the medium term comes from
the industrial potential itself and not so much from a specific armaments industry, because the
industrial potential would be the basis for a wide range of potential armaments efforts.

Such considerations may seem unusual, but the fundamental question is whether the Arab
Spring was really a purely domestic event or whether and to what extent external powers were
involved. In the case of Libya and Syria, there has definitely been this outside interference,
and it has been military. Whether there were also covert interferences in addition to these
open ones, we leave open. In any case, there have been no discernible specific attempts by
the US and Israel to keep the old authoritarian regimes in power in their respective countries.

If one assumes that the popular uprisings in the Arab world were not only spontaneous, but
also served a higher strategy, one can interpret that the Arab Spring was a precursor to the
Third World War.

In any case, an Irlmaier witness from the Allgäu, whom I interviewed in 2012 and - as far as
possible - put through her paces, told me that Alois Irlmaier foresaw the »Arab Spring«. I
phoned this lady, had her write down the Irlmaier predictions and had them sent to me, then
visited her, went through everything point by point and made audio and video recordings. The
lady returned to Irlmaier:
Beyond the boot country [Italy] there is a murder riot. The desert lands see a lot of unrest. People shoot each other
down. Governments will be deposed and killed. The unrest goes from country to country.145

As the lady remembered, Irlmaier foresaw the Arab Spring at around the same time as the
euro crisis, and between the euro crisis and the war in Europe Irlmaier also saw no real
economic recovery. This, in turn, can be interpreted in such a way that the Arab Spring is more
or less the penultimate act in the Arab world before the crisis begins to worsen in Europe.

In fact, the statements of the above Irlmaier witness coincide with another Irlmaier statement,
which only became known in 2002, but seemed to prove its authenticity as early as 2005,
when there were weeks of youth unrest in Paris (see page 182):
146
First, the city with the iron tower will set itself on fire and revolt with the youth. The stink goes around the world.

The stunk going around the world fits well with the year 2011, when the Arab Spring was at its
peak and at the same time there were general strikes and numerous large-scale
demonstrations in Italy and elsewhere in southern Europe because of the euro crisis. There
was also the Occupy Wall Street movement in 2011, violent riots in North London and major
demonstrations in Israel against rent extortion. In Europe and the Arab world, 2011 was
definitely a "Stink" year. Although Europe plus the Arab region is not »the world«, the wording
sums it up pretty well.

Veronica Lueken (USA, 1975) makes a statement that also points in the direction of the Arab
Spring. In that vision, the seer sees what "looks like a map" and continues:
I can see Jerusalem on it, Egypt, Arabia and French Morocco. A very dense darkness seems to be spreading
147
over these lands, and Mary says: "The beginning of the Third World War, my child"...
The "dense darkness" is certainly not to be understood as material darkness, but rather as
soul-spiritual darkness in North Africa and the Middle East. Such a spiritual darkness or
collective depression is accompanied by a loss of hope. That is what the Arab Spring is: a
failed hope! Accordingly, Veronica Lueken would aim at the time when the failure of the Arab
Spring became visible. The coup by the Egyptian military against the democratically elected
government of the Muslim Brotherhood can be taken as a key point in time. That was on July
3, 2013. (Things are still quiet in French Morocco, now Morocco.)

Edgar Cayce (d. 1945), the well-known trance medium from the USA, also made a statement
from April 1941 that could refer to the Arab Spring:
In time discord and strife will arise. [...] Observe them in Libya, Egypt, in Ankara and in Syria, in the straits above
Australia, in the Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf 148

Libya, Egypt and Syria were the arenas of the Arab Spring that drew the most attention. As
for Turkey (Ankara) - well, it has a very large army, a strained relationship with Greece, with
the EU, with Israel, with the Kurds anyway, is an opponent of the Assad regime and at the end
of 2014 already indirectly intervened in the Syrian civil war. An intelligent alliance policy of
Turkey - despite NATO membership - is currently difficult to recognize. It is therefore
conceivable that Turkey could get drawn into any conflict and lose out (see Turkish-Greek
conflict on page 140). In the West, Turkish President Erdogan is seen as too authoritarian,
and there is a mood in the West that also longs for »regime change« in Ankara.

In short: From the point of view of the "old" prophecy, it looks as if the Arab Spring is a
preliminary phase to the Third World War or at least part of the whole chaos that ultimately
ends in the big war.

"It will begin in the Middle East."

According to today's usage, the Middle East is understood to mean the entire Arabian
peninsula up to the Mediterranean Sea, including Israel, Syria, Iraq, Palestine, Jordan and
Lebanon. In a broader sense, Turkey, Egypt and Iran would then be added. When some
prophecies now speak of the "Middle East", it is unfortunately not entirely clear what exactly
is meant by that - but in any case the region around Israel to Egypt and to the Persian Gulf.

A c.1940 source published in 1988 states:

...It will start in the Middle East. [...]
A small nation will do great wrong, [...]
There will be a conference between four towers
then it is already too late.
149
The Russians will look through the inn windows of the Germans while they are still sitting over their beer.

The small people could be a reference to Israel. The State of Israel has around eight million
inhabitants, six million of whom are Jews. In recent times, there has been increasing
nationalisation and radicalization of Israel's Jewish population, and the Israeli government's
anti-Arab policies have met with broad support among Jews in the country. That means that
in Israel there is currently not much difference between the will of the Jewish population and
the will of the government in Jerusalem. The people and the government essentially form a
single entity when it comes to Arab politics.
However, whether the "little people" are really committing great injustice or whether an action
was only perceived as such by the seer is a question of interpretation. The seer may have
only noticed the worldwide reaction or condemnation of an "injustice", but not the injustice
itself. Perhaps there would be anti-Israel demonstrations worldwide, as in 2014 with the Gaza
war.

In theory, of course, it could also be the Palestinians who are committing the great injustice.
Militarily, the Palestinians have no chance against Israel. So the injustice would have to be a
Palestinian terrorist attack, and a terrorist attack that significantly exceeded the "usual" death
toll there. It would have to be 100 or more dead in one fell swoop. However, the fact that Israel
has been able to prevent precisely such attacks extremely successfully for years speaks
against such a Palestinian mass murder of Jews! The last attacks by Palestinians on Jews in
late 2014 were carried out in one case with a knife, one with an ax and another time with a
construction vehicle.

Ultimately, however, it would not matter which small people committed the great injustice.
Whether the Jews or the Arabs, the result would be a renewed escalation of the Jewish-Arab
conflict. The 2014 Gaza War showed that Jewish Israelis are getting fed up with the eternal
conflict with the Arabs and are longing for a lasting and definitive solution. An Israeli
government spokesman shied away z. E.g. not to say in front of rolling cameras in connection
with the rocket attacks from Gaza that one wants to end the problem "once and for all".150

Given that the Palestinians have been rebelling against Israel for the past 70 years, it becomes
clear how violent the reaction could be if Israel ever tried to "solve the problem once and for
all."

As far as the IS in Syria and Iraq is concerned, it could actually not be the small people, since
the IS is not perceived as a people at all in our country. In connection with IS, there are
repeated reports of fighters who come from all over the world.

So much in the real world points to a renewed, even more dramatic escalation of the Israeli-
Arab conflict. And there is another statement by Alois Irlmaier, this time from a former friend
of Irlmaier I interviewed south of Munich in 2014:
... But that's what he often said: Oh, let's do it (it'll start ...) over there with the Jews and with the Arabs, there it
goes oh (let's go).

I personally interviewed this former friend of Irlmaier in 2014 151 , but mainly let him tell the
story without directing him with questions. The witness came up with the idea twice that
Irlmaier had said that the great war was beginning "with the Jews and the Arabs." If Irlmaier
said that about the Jews and Arabs twice, then, given Irlmaier's reliability, this is a quasi-
declared prediction.
Some readers will now think to themselves: »Okay, things have actually been rattling in the
Middle East for decades«. Of course that's true. But I think that Irlmaier really meant a new
Israeli-Arab war that will last until war breaks out in Central Europe.
In 1978 the author Adalbert Schönhammer published the following statement attributed to
Alois Irlmaier in his book PSI and the Third World War:
Everything calls for peace, shalom!
That's where it will happen. -
A new Middle East war suddenly flares up,
large naval formations face each other in the Mediterranean hostile -
The situation is tense.
But the actual igniting spark is thrown into the powder keg in the Balkans,

Shalom is another indication of Israeli involvement in the conflict. »Everything calls for peace,
shalom!« can be interpreted as a worldwide peace movement in the run-up to the escalation.
And the shalom is possibly an indication that there is also a peace movement in Israel. That
would be interesting in that at the moment (beginning of 2015) there is not only no peace
movement worth mentioning in Israel, but that Jewish peace activists there are under
considerable social pressure and are publicly attacked, even treated like traitors to the country.
Currently, most Israelis don't want any (real) peace at all, they are banking on strength. The
statement can therefore be interpreted to mean that a number of Israelis also become uneasy
about the brewing conflict and - in contrast to 2014 - take to the streets and demonstrate for
peace.

Assuming that Irlmaier's quote above is exact in terms of chronology, the following
interpretation of the sequence of events would result.
1. A new Middle East war is brewing but has not yet broken out.
2. Since people around the world understand the danger potential of the conflict, a peace movement is
formed.
3. Then this Middle East war breaks out anyway, or another simultaneous Middle East conflict escalates into
war.
4. At the same time there are large fleets in the (probably eastern) Mediterranean, but they are not firing at
each other for the time being.
5. Neither NATO nor Russia intervened in this conflict. The new Middle East war seems limited for the time
being.
6. Then a war breaks out in the Balkans. Either this is the Turkish-Greek

* The "Balkans" could be an interpretation by the recorder, since the recorder's interpretations can be
seen here and there in the corresponding overall text.

Conflict immediately followed by Russian attack, or another conflict in the Balkans (Serbia?).
In any case, this results in the direct confrontation between Russia and NATO = Third World
War. Perhaps "Baikan" is also an interpretation of the recorder, after all, Irlmaier was a different
source153 after, shortly before his death not sure whether the final trigger of the war (the
assassination) took place in the Balkans. According to one source, he also saw the
assassination in the east, which, seen from southeast Bavaria, speaks more in favor of
Ukraine.

Berta Zängeler (Switzerland, around 1950, appeared on the internet in 2008):

154
War breaks out in the Middle East. Entire states will disappear from the map there.
In fact, entire countries in the Middle East have already disappeared from the map: Libya, Iraq
and Syria. We just don't really realize it because the TV news is still working with old maps.

Berta Zängeler is the third source that I got from the internet and reproduce here. More about
her below.

Brother Adam (1949, Würzburg):

War will break out in the Southeast, but it's just a ruse. This is to mislead the enemy.155

Seen from Würzburg, both the Balkans and the Middle East lie to the south-east. One thing
that speaks against Serbia (and Ukraine) as the place of the cunning is that escalating fighting
there is likely to spread to Western Europe within hours or just a few days. In fact, one can no
longer speak of a ruse. On the other hand, if a new Middle East crisis gradually lured Western
military forces into the region, this could be seen as a ruse by the Russians, as it would divert
attention from Central Europe.

Don Bosco (1874, Turin, Italy):

From the south comes war, from the north comes peace.156

I know absolutely nothing from European prophecy about armies advancing from southern
Italy to northern Italy. But for many years, those interested in prophecy have talked about Islam
becoming a real military threat to Europe. It doesn't help if you tell these people that there is
no arms industry worth mentioning in the Arab world, that the Arabs have no nuclear weapons
and also no navy, which they needed for the invasion of Europe.

Consequently, south can be translated as Middle East again. The peace that comes from the
north would be the "great monarch" who, after the victory over the Russians in Germany and
after his coronation in Cologne, takes care of the situation in the south, especially in Italy
(Rome) and Israel.

Veronica Lueken (1972, USA):

Maria let Veronica look at a map again, you can see Egypt, Africa and then ... Israel as the center ... : »There will
be a great war [...]
It will be the end of your era as you know it. Prepare your souls now, you have all been warned.« [Again, this
157
tends to be a wrong time-point prognosis.]

According to "old" prophecy, it would be clear that World War III would begin a few weeks
beforehand in the Middle East, with a conflict involving Israel. Also, this conflict should not
escalate all of a sudden, but should gradually come to a head before the eyes of the world
public. That would give us one of the most important omens of all: a conflict brewing in the
Middle East towards the middle of summer of year X.

Israel and the plan for the big bang

Basically, everyone has felt it, and has been for some time: either there will be real peace in
the Middle East at some point, or there will be a big bang down there at some point. The
Israeli-Arab conflict with all its warlike eruptions has been going on for almost 70 years and
there is no real will for peace in evidence. Instead of healing wounds, new wounds are inflicted.
In ancient times one would have said that such conditions would inevitably evoke the wrath of
the gods.

The Israelis are of course aware of that. Consequently, Israel needs a plan for this big bang.
Not having such a plan would be strategic stupidity beyond compare.

Essentially, this plan will result in escalation as far as possible under Israeli direction. If the
bang has to come, please do it in the way that suits Israel best. An absolutely fundamental
aspect of this would be "right" timing, both in terms of Israel's military and domestic political
situation, as well as the situation in the Middle East as a whole and, of course, the world
political situation. From a purely geostrategic point of view, an impending major conflict
between NATO and Russia would probably not be a good opportunity for Israel to return for
decades to create a fait accompli in the ever-smouldering conflicts with its neighbouring states
without much international clamour. If a major war broke out in Europe at the same time as a
major Middle East war, Europe and America would be preoccupied with events on their own
soil. The public interest in Europe in what is happening in the Middle East would initially be
zero.

According to European prophecy, it will be a few months, maybe half a year, after the Russian
attack before Europe is able to take a closer look at the situation in the Middle East. The war
in Central Europe would last about three months. Then areas of unrest would first have to be
pacified everywhere in Central Europe, Central European troops would first ensure order in
Italy, bring the Pope back to Rome, etc. Only then would appreciable capacities for the Middle
East be free again.

As the cases of Henry Kissinger, Richard Perle and George Friedman (StratFor) show - all
three politically very influential US citizens with Jewish roots - a geostrategic, long-term
planning thinking is anything but remote from Jewish intellectuals. Israeli geostrategists will
have thought very carefully some time ago about what the global political framework would
have to look like so that a lasting solution to the Palestinian problem for Israel is possible
without a new major problem for Israel immediately arising from this, namely being accused
internationally because Israel has definitely overreacted to the Palestinians. Israel cannot
afford to do everything either, and foreign policy pressure could at some point become too
great for Israel as well.

Israel's number one strategic problem

Israel's main strategic problem - and here one could certainly speak of a question of survival
- seen in the long term is the expansion of its national territory, because this is the only way
the Jewish population and thus the strength of Israel can continue to grow significantly.
Population growth in Israel is currently 1.8 percent and thus exceeds - just as an example -
the population growth in India (1.2 percent) 158 . The population growth in Israel's
neighbouring countries is similarly high:

According to the World Bank, in 2013 the annual population growth in Jordan was 2.2 percent,
in Syria 2.0 percent and in Egypt 1.6 percent. An increasing struggle for resources in the region
is foreseeable and, in the case of water, already there. In addition, the Arab-Islamic population
within Israel is growing faster than the Jewish population: Arabs 2.2 percent (= doubling in 32
years), Jews 1.7 percent (= doubling in 42 years).

Fig. 22: 'Population growth in Israel’ (source Wikipedia (up to and including 2010))
Here you can see right away how the State of Israel is heading towards a gigantic 'problem'. He urgently
needs more land . On the one hand because of the population growth in Israel as a whole, but also
because within Israel the Arab-non-Jewish proportion is increasing dramatically.

So Israel definitely needs more land in the medium and long term. And this logic also follows
the continuous construction of settlements in the West Bank, with which Israel permanently
violates UN resolutions (Resolution 242).

The only problem with all of this is that in the western world it is now considered a sacred law
that a state must not expand its territory. We are currently seeing this in the Russia-NATO
conflict, which Russia could probably defuse completely immediately if Crimea were returned
to Ukraine. On the other hand, the annexation/secession of Crimea is always cited by the West
as the central argument for sanctions against Russia.

So how does Israel get out of this dilemma? Its population is growing rapidly, as is the
population of its neighbouring states. Israel needs more land. However, he is not entitled to
do so under international law. And this international law is a sacred cow that no one is allowed
to slaughter - not even Israel.
Ultimately, the solution to the problem with the sacred cow would be quite simple: If it came to
a situation where this sacred cow was slaughtered almost everywhere in the world, what is
happening in the Middle East would ultimately not matter as much . The "solution" would be,
so to speak, a general worldwide slaughterhouse, in the moral slipstream or blind spot of which
Israel could implement a large-scale resettlement policy without too many questions being
asked afterwards.

If Israel is planning for the long term - and it has to - then it has to keep an eye on the overall
global political situation and adjust its strategy in the Middle East accordingly. To what extent
one judges that morally is another matter. Strategically, however, Israel is drifting towards a
full-blown existential crisis as a result of Middle East demographics. In addition, Israel must
become more independent of the United States and others in the long term. That means it
needs to ramp up its industrial potential, especially for armaments. And that also means: more
territory for a larger population.

After all, the Arab world will not remain in chaos forever. Historically, it has always happened
that large masses of people are at some point roused from chaos and lethargy by a great idea.
The best or worst example is the rise of Adolf Hitler. Eventually, the chaos in the Middle East
will give way to a new order, and that new order could lead to a new concentration of power.
And then if that concentration of power happened to be anti-Israeli again, Israel would have a
problem, and a pretty big one at that.

So, in the case of Israel, one should not get too bogged down in moral judgments, but simply
look at the map, consider the population growth in Israel, and consider a little the lessons of
history. In a sense, the Jewish people are squeezed into the State of Israel like a womb. At
some point it just has to come out. And to stay with the picture: there is also an Arabian twin
in this uterus, which is also growing a little faster.

Today, Israel is faced with the fateful decision of either making real peace with its neighbouring
peoples and following the western multicultural trend and giving up long-term Jewish
dominance within Israel, or expanding territorially. However, if it expands territorially, it can
only survive this in terms of foreign policy if international law has actually broken down by then.
Therefore, there is much to be said for the Third World War in Europe and the "final" solution
to the Palestinian problem being close in time.

Syria
Let's now look at other aspects of the prophesied Middle East escalation: Even if the sources
quickly become blurred and sometimes even contradictory with regard to the individual details,
there is still another salient focus: namely Syria. Which brings us to the involvement of Russia
(Syria's ally) and the USA.
A direct connection from Syria to Russia is via the Syrian port city of Tartus, where Russia
maintains a naval base. Tartus is Russia's only naval base in the entire Mediterranean basin
and is strategically linked to Sevastopol in Crimea. Russia needs Sevastopol and Tartus for
power projection in the Mediterranean and Middle East.

To illustrate the geostrategic importance of Syria for Russia, here are excerpts from an
interview with Professor Andrei Fursov, head of the Center for Research on Russia at the
Moscow Humanities University and member of the International Academy of Sciences (in
Munich), on August 9, 2012 at KRru under the title:
Strike against Syria - target: Russia
... Without the solution of the Syrian question, the Anglo-Saxons, i. H. the British and the Americans dare not go
to Iran. [...] It is they [the Anglo-Saxons] who are attacking Syria, and it is precisely these who must now be
stopped [for Russia] at the “Syria border point”.

According to the Russian interpretation, after Syria comes Iran, and then Russia, which the
West is already putting under massive economic pressure.

A year after the interview with Professor Andrei Fursov, Russia was only able to avert a US
attack on Syria at the last minute, and of course the US once again used its human rights
argument in threatening war against Syria.

I am aware of three (or four) sources according to which Syria plays a key role in the immediate
run-up to the outbreak of war in Europe. In the 1970s and 80s of the 20th century, Veronica
Lueken, the seer, gained a certain notoriety in the state of New York, USA. On May 30, 1981,
she warned:
Syria holds the key to solving world peace or World War III

Had Veronica Lueken been "inspired" to make this statement in 1981 by a parallel conflict in
the Middle East? Did the New York sparrows whistle from the rooftops and the lady just
whistled along?

How to google and find out: No! From 1980 to 1988, Syria supported Iran against Iraq in the
first Gulf War, but this conflict never threatened to escalate and other states to become actively
involved. In 1991, Syria even participated in the US-led liberation of Kuwait. Seen in this way,
Syria even behaved in a pro-Western manner. In 2000, the old Syrian dictator Hafiz al-Assad
died and was replaced by his son Bashar al-Assad, who had studied and married in London
and was initially considered to be significantly more liberal than his father. Yes, initially Bashar
al-Assad even appeared as a kind of beacon of hope. From 2005, however, an assassination
attempt on the long-time former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri in Beirut led to a
significant deterioration in Syria's relations with the West. The US in particular blamed Syria
for Hariri's murder. From 2011 onwards, the civil war in Syria began in the wake of the false
Arab spring, as a result of which Western pressure on Syria increased significantly (by the end
of 2014 around 200,000 deaths with a population of 21 million). Then, in 2013, Syria was
forced to surrender its chemical weapons under the threat of military force – again largely from
the United States.
Now, without its weapons of mass destruction, Syria has been manoeuvred into a position
where it could no longer deter a possible NATO attack. Unless Russia threatens to intervene
militarily on Syria's side in the conflict.
According to this, Veronica Lueken did not in any way »rewrite« a crisis surrounding Syria that
was long forgotten at the time as a sign of a Third World War. One can rather claim that
Veronica Lueken foresaw from 1981 until at least 2013 (threatened US intervention in the
Syrian civil war). In the roughly 30 years up to 2013, there was no open conflict in the Middle
East that Syria could have involved the superpowers in. In addition, in the mid-1980s, with
Gorbachev, the upheaval in Eastern Europe became apparent, so that one can only speak of
a new potential for conflict between Russia and the West again from around 2008 (Russian-
Georgian war).

In line with Veronica Lueken's 1981 prediction from the USA, there is a prediction from the
1980s from the Warsaw Pact, which was still sealed off and isolated at the time - specifically
Bulgaria - by a blind seer named Wanga, who is well known in Eastern Europe. Wanga also
points to a key role played by Syria. In 1980 she is said to have said:
Until then [the coming of the new balance in the world after the great chaos], humanity will experience many natural
disasters and social cataclysms. Gradually, human consciousness will change. Hard times are coming. [...]

A cataclysm is a large, all-destructive catastrophe, such as the Late Cretaceous impact that
killed the dinosaurs. "Social cataclysm" can be equated with war and world war. Ultimately,
however, Wanga also predicts a positive future for mankind. In 1980 she was asked if the time
of catastrophes would soon be upon us. Wanga replied:
No, not soon. Syria has not fallen yet!160

"Not soon" can be understood if you fast forward from 1980 to at least 2008, i.e. to the time
when it became all too clear that Russia and the West had not come closer after all. Personally,
I wouldn't bet on Syria falling, that is, Assad being ousted from office. For an accurate
assessment of the above quote, one would have to consult the original Bulgarian text. Whether
it really falls or only shortly before the fall could have been an interpretation of the seer.

The next source that also points to a conflict with Syria just before the outbreak of the great
war is again Alois Irlmaier. A key element in the text already quoted below is a naval
concentration in the Mediterranean immediately before the outbreak of war, which can only be
the NATO fleet and the Russian fleet. The Arabs don't have a navy worth mentioning.

Many readers will now object that it could also be a matter of Turkish and Greek warships. On
the other hand, however, speaks against the fact that the Turkish-Greek conflict is supposed
to break out unexpectedly, but according to the following quote these fleets would initially only
threaten each other and not yet shoot at each other.

The quote was first published in 1978 - and I've mentioned it before:
Everything calls for peace, shalom!
That's where it will happen. - A new Middle East war suddenly flares up,
large naval formations face each other in the Mediterranean.
The situation is tense. [But you don't shoot at each other yet!]
But the actual igniting spark is thrown into the powder keg in the Balkans.161

Based on the currently known circumstances and on the basis of Russian and NATO fleets, it
is likely to be the eastern Mediterranean. Since Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Greece, even
Slovenia, Croatia and Albania are now NATO members, and Russia has no base of its own
from Morocco to Egypt and Israel, there is nothing for Russia to gain in the western and
southern Mediterranean. But what would make sense would be a Russian naval presence off
the Syrian coast if a NATO attack threatens there, as it did in September 2013, when at times
a dozen NATO ships and a dozen Russian ships cruised there.

One or the other reader may not share my interpretation with the Russian ships off the Syrian
coast. But if these fleets only threaten each other at first, it cannot be the Turkish-Greek
conflict. Consequently, one of the fleets would be the Russian one, and it would be likely to
be cruising off the Syrian coast.

Fleet concentrations also appear from another source, namely again from Veronica Lueken
(June 3, 1981):
Veronica: I see U.L.F [Our Lady = the Virgin Mary] standing on the globe. [...] I see the outlines of a globe [...].
U.L.F. looks around, now she takes her hands and points to the sky above her. In the sky I see a huge collection
of ships. I see water, no land in sight, but many ships. The sky is getting very dark now. This gives me an uneasy
feeling. I can't explain it, there are ships everywhere. I try to recognize them. I don't deal with ships. They don't look
like tankers, they look like battleships.
Now, oh... oh! There flutters the hammer and sickle - a flag, a red flag with hammer and sickle. The image
evaporates and disappears.162

In modern-day Russia, the hammer and sickle no longer adorns an official flag, but the official
flag of the Red Army is based on the flag that the Russians hoisted on the Berlin Reichstag in
1945: the so-called victory flag. This flag was red, with a five-pointed star at the top left and a
hammer and sickle below it. Today's Red Army flag is practically the same, only the hammer
and sickle are missing.

In the booklet from which this quote comes, it is assumed that it is about the Persian Gulf. But
since there are a good half dozen American military bases on the Persian Gulf coast opposite
Iran, if the Russian Navy weren't in their right mind, they would fall into this trap in the Persian
Gulf.

Veronica: U.L.F. move to the left, our right side and I see the map of Africa. I see the Mediterranean and I see ships
going out. They come from a canal. I recognize the Mediterranean and they steer down. It seems they are moving
across the sky towards those battleships. Now everything is fading. I can't see anything on either side.

Sounds to me like they mean a naval concentration in the Mediterranean. The canal would
then be the Suez Canal. The sequence from "I see the Mediterranean Sea" to "and they are
steering down" can also be read in such a way that the ships leave the Mediterranean Sea via
the Suez Canal. In view of the other prophecies, however, it seems unlikely that shortly before
the outbreak of the Third World War there would be large concentrations of fleets in both the
Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf at the same time, and that those warships that want to go
to the Persian Gulf would, so to speak, join those in the Mediterranean damming battleships
in the direction of the Suez Canal.

Quite apart from such inconsistencies, one can avoid the question of whose fleets exactly are
meant - whether NATO, Russian, Turkish or Greek fleets - simply by looking at the sign "Naval
concentrations in the Mediterranean" immediately before the outbreak of the great war noted
in midsummer.
 Russia's Advance to Jerusalem?

The following is not so interesting from the point of view of omens and advance warning, but
helpful for the overall understanding, and it opens i.a. a look at the time after the disasters:

Israel today appears as a local superpower. It is militarily strong and combat-ready, has
about 200 tactical atomic bombs according to what is known, has an expanding armaments
industry with an annual turnover of seven billion dollars and 150,000 employees (for
comparison: Germany employs 100000 workers in the defence industry.163) defensiveness,
the European prophecy shows that, from a military point of view, something must go terribly
wrong for Israel.

Don Bosco (d. 1888, Turin, Italy):

A great transformation will take place among all nations and the world will be turned into a mess... We will have
quite a few vicissitudes see, still in pain, before things settle into their destined kind... The places of holy Palestine
will be conquered again [by the Christians], and on the top of the dome the Latin cross will be erected. Then there
164
will be peace such as has never been seen...

The Italian Don Bosco (1815-1888) came from a poor family and was ordained a priest in
1841. He later founded the Salesian Order, dedicated to the care of young people, which had
grown to 250 branches by the time Don Bosco died. Over 100,000 young men were cared for
there!

From the age of nine Don Bosco had visions, often; eschatological character, which he
recorded in writing, but only part of it was published. In 1929 he was canonised by Pope Pius
XI. Don Bosco's commitment and last but not least his canonization may be enough evidence
for his credibility.

During Don Bosco's lifetime, Palestine was still part of the Ottoman Empire. After its defeat in
the First World War, the British received the "Mandate over Palestine" in 1922, which included
not only Palestine but also Transjordan (Jordan). At that time no one spoke of Israel. That only
changed in 1948 with the founding of the Jewish state, after all, a name was needed for this
new state with which one could distinguish oneself from the Arabs living there, the
Palestinians. Consequently, Palestine as a name did not work. The declaration of
independence of the State of Israel expressly states: The name of the State is Israel. This
name goes back to the kingdom of Israel, which according to biblical tradition came into
existence around the year 1000 BC. existed for about 90 years before it split into a northern
kingdom of Israel and a southern kingdom of Judah.

With Palestine, Don Bosco must have meant today's Israel. The overall context, which clearly
refers to the scenario of the Third World War, shows that he cannot have meant the British
conquest of Palestine. After all, after the First World War it was not »peace like never before«
but Adolf Hitler, the Second World War, Auschwitz, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and 40 years of
the Cold War.
According to the current state of affairs and knowledge of European prophecy, Christian, i.e.
European troops in Palestine/Israel could probably only be explained by saying that first
Russian troops invaded Israel/Palestine, this is the real reason for the weakening of the Israeli
military, and Western troops advance there only later as part of a counterattack.

Either way, it would be clear that Israel - if Palestine is occupied by Christians - will not be able
to cope with any opponent. However, Israel is vastly superior militarily to the Arabs and its
immediate neighbours. Consequently, the incursion of a great military power is emerging here,
that is, Russia.
I will try to clarify below whether the dome mentioned by Don Bosco is the Hagia Sophia in
Istanbul or the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem.

Interestingly enough, Don Bosco's core statements of Christian dominance in the area of
Israel/Palestine and the creation of genuine and lasting peace in the region are confirmed in
an Islamic source of all things:
The major omens of the Qiyamah (the Day of Judgment):
A war between Christians and Muslims, but half of the Christians [the Russians!] help the Muslims.
The hostile Christians [NATO without Turkey] conquer Constantinople, which is regained [temporarily again by
Russia?].
The Christians regroup among themselves [so Constantinople changes camps again] and conquer Syria and parts
165
of Arabia [since Israel no longer has the strength to control its Arab neighbours].

The conflict within NATO with the recapture of Istanbul also appears in this Arabic source.
If the Russians are fighting on the side of the Arabs, then they must also be fighting an enemy
of the Arabs. That would certainly be an Israeli-American alliance.

Amsterdam Embassy (1947):

Disasters will come from north to south, from south to west, and from west to east. I now see a round dome. I
understand internally: This is the dome of Jerusalem. I hear now: "Heavy battles will be fought around and near
Jerusalem."166

The monk Paisios on this:

The Russians annihilate Turkey and halt their advance at the gates of Jerusalem. They will occupy this zone for
six months.167

The round dome in Jerusalem would have to be the Dome of the Rock. Again, these could
not normally be exclusively Israeli-Arab battles, as the Israeli military is vastly superior to its
Arab neighbours. Syria, for example, has already been massively weakened by the civil war.

So there is also an indirect reference to Russia in the Amsterdam embassy!

In connection with the dome again to Don Bosco, who wrote:
The places of holy Palestine will be recaptured and the Latin cross will be erected on top of the dome.168

When Don Bosco mentions Palestine and an important dome in the same breath, he could be
referring to the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, one of the main shrines in Islam! But I think
that's an unnecessary and stupid humiliation of Muslims. A more sensible alternative would
be the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul, which was built by Christians as a church and was a Christian
church for around 1000 years.
Amsterdam Embassy (1946):
Then I see the one in front of me
Swipe a map and hear:
"Judea!" and I see "Jerusalem" written in it. Then I suddenly recognize two lines with an arrow at the ends. One
says »Russia«

That, too, sounds as if Russian troops and American-Israeli-Saudi troops would meet near
Israel and Jerusalem. In any case, the two lines have nothing to do with Europe. Almost no
US troops would show up in Europe, apart from the few that "coincidentally" still were there.

Edward Korkowski (born 1931) lives in the Cologne area and says he has had visions for
over 40 years. Korkowski's visions were published in book form in 1990 and 1991, among
other places. Among other things, he has the following quote on the Middle East:
War broke out there, with explosions in Israel and further into the Arab East. But this warfare also spread to
Egypt, Syria and on the other side to Iran and Pakistan. Squadrons of planes flew over the area and suddenly the
mushroom clouds were visible, spread across the war zone of North Africa and the Middle East. [...] because it is
their [»the negative powers that constantly plot war«] last chance to involve the great powers in East and West in
wanted fights.170

Fig. 23: Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem

 Fig. 24: Hagia Sophia in Istanbul

It would be questionable whether the USA would still have enough time, as in 1991 and 2003,
to bring enough weapons and material into the region. That would take a few months, and
soon enough the Russians would know what the Americans were planning down there.

The US would probably lean more towards its ally Saudi Arabia, a country with a gigantic
bloated military. In 2013, for example, Saudi Arabia spent a whopping 67 billion US dollars on
defense171.
This put it fourth in the world, just behind Russia (with 88 billion). Only Russia has 140 million
inhabitants, but Saudi Arabia only 30 million. Leaving aside the mini-states of Oman and
Qatar, Saudi Arabia has an absolute top value worldwide with armaments expenditure of more
than nine percent of the gross domestic product (USA 3.8 percent, Germany 1.4 percent).

Saudi Arabia is a rich country and, given its oil wealth, it has good reason to maintain a strong
military. Its strategic rival in the region - Iran - despite its much larger population (75 million) in
2011 in a direct comparison with Saudi Arabia only about a third for armaments from (Iran 20
billion; Saudi Arabia 59 billion172). So the question is why are the Saudis spending so much
on armaments? In any case, no danger seems to emanate from Iran for the foreseeable future,
and certainly not from Iraq. Actually, Iraq no longer exists as a state.

So are the backgrounds for the Saudi mega-armament only to be found in some shady
dealings and deals with the US armaments industry? Is it only about the profit of the US
defence industry? Or is there a geostrategic intention on the part of the USA behind the
armament of the desert state? Does the US need the Saudis as a surprise wild card in the
event of a sudden Russian invasion of the Middle East? In any case, it is astounding how the
USA has been watching calmly for a long time as an Arab state, and a fundamentalist-Islamist
one at that, is arming itself militarily, although it is not threatened for the time being and spends
around four times as much on armaments as Israel (figures from 2011). Equally amazing is
that Israel accepts this without complaint.
"Israel and beyond in the Arab East" sounds like the region from Israel to Iraq. If the explosions
are small and conventional, we basically have this situation now. Syria is already there. Egypt
seethes beneath the surface.

However, if the explosions were small nuclear explosions, they could be Israeli nuclear bombs.
In any case, it shouldn't be Russian, since Russia would have to reckon with an immediate
nuclear counter-attack by the USA. Not so Israel.

For Russia, there are hardly any targets in the region that would justify such a risk. Israel, on
the other hand, could try to force its opponents to the negotiating table or to capitulate with
targeted but still limited nuclear strikes. By all accounts, Israel has around 200 nuclear devices,
but these are said to be small nuclear bombs for use against smaller targets. i.e. the
destructive potential of Israeli nuclear weapons would still be halfway within the limits of
conventional warfare, only they would be destroyed in seconds, which would take days or
weeks with conventional weapons.

Israel could also justify the use of nuclear weapons like the USA justified the attacks on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945: the aim is to shorten the war and limit the number of victims
for both warring parties!

In any case, Israel's deployment plans for its nuclear force will aim to achieve the earliest
possible victory in the event of war and to be able to dictate the terms of peace. The goal of
using nuclear weapons would not be so much destruction, but rather the fastest and most total
victory possible. Therefore, in the event of an escalation in the Middle East, the use of Israeli
nuclear weapons should be expected relatively soon, and not only as Israel's last, desperate
resort at the end of a long, exhausting war that is also exhausting for Israel. It is precisely this
situation that Edward Korkowski seems to be describing.

Veronica Lueken (1973, USA) also refers to the area addressed by Edward Korkowski:
...shows Veronica a globe and points to Asia, Egypt, Africa. A terrible war is going on, many, many people are
173
dying, many unprepared souls are among them.

The many "unprepared souls" would have to be civilians since soldiers are psychologically
prepared for death. The statement thus points to the bombing of urban residential areas.

Mother Erna Stieglitz (1975, Bavaria):

In the summer, probably in July, when the oil region is already in fairly firm Soviet hands, the Soviet Union
attacks its southern and northern flanks, Turkey, Greece, Yugoslavia and Scandinavia. At the end of July, the
Soviet offensive wedges made a rapid advance towards Western Europe."174

So the core issue here too: Russia is penetrating deep into the Arab world. However, the
words "probably" and "reasonably" already reveal that the seer is not rendered verbatim. It is
the reminiscence of a witness. But even if certain interpretations may have crept into the
tradition, this does not automatically mean that the entire content is fictitious. In my opinion,
Mother Erna Stieglitz (1894-1975) is basically a useful source. Erna Stieglitz came from near
Augsburg and is said to have been a member of the Third Order of St. Francis.
Seher vom Waldviertel (1959, documented in 1980, Austria):
"All-out war," with American participation, only takes place in Saudi Arabia [in his view, only after the Russian
invasion of Germany], where the Americans invaded the oil region, but they lost out. The 5 Russian wins."175

From today's perspective, an "incursion" by the USA into the oil fields can be seen as an
erroneous interpretation. In an emergency, the USA would certainly no longer have the time
to transport powerful troops halfway around the world. Consequently, a combination of
existing US ground forces and Arab allies would have to be used.

Here is a prophecy text published in 1988:

Angel points with his hand
On the water, littoral. Behold the hostile fleets Behold the ominous sea.
Behold the combat troops there Where the God's childhood abode See how vengeful they are, Shalom salutation
blown in the wind.
Here begins the great war No one wins from it, Russia takes the city of Belgrade, France, Rome gets involved.
The Red Army strikes at lightning speed
German country, out of fright without defence
Panic paralyses the power of friends
The night of death embraces them [the three-day darkness].176

This text was published in 1988 by Wolfgang Johannes Bekh, but without usable information
about the author ("author unknown"). At first glance, the text looks like a poem by someone
who is well versed in European prophecy and has pieced together fragments from various
prophecies. On the other hand, there are some elements that are otherwise unknown. Thus,
in the text, France is drawn into the war even before the attack on Germany, namely in
connection with the Russian advance towards Belgrade. I think the only way to explain this is
that France (and Italy) have troops stationed near Serbia and are getting in the way of the
Russians. The KFOR protection force is currently in Kosovo and is assigned to several sectors
there. In the north are the French, in the west are the Italians.

On the subject of "Russian troops in the Middle East", I would like to briefly go into the Bible,
which as a "local source" contains some prophecies that may relate to the above scenario.
First of all, it should be noted that the actual end times cannot be condensed into a few months
or years, the end times rather include the entire phase of the world wars (from 1914). From a
parapsychological point of view, there is also the problem that the Middle Eastern seers, who
served as the basis of the Bible, could have mixed and confused elements of the First, Second,
Third and Fourth (!) World Wars. In addition, today's interpretations of quotations from the
Bible are often strongly influenced by personal motives and that the seers of that time could
also have interpreted some things subjectively.

All of this notwithstanding, there is one Scripture below (see page 175) that could go back to
a genuine vision of the Russian invasion of Israel.
 Summary on the topic of the new Middle East war

According to the prophecies quoted above, the situation in the Middle East immediately before
the outbreak of the great war in Europe would be somewhat confusing, since there were
several conflicts in the region at the same time. However, several simultaneous Middle East
wars, also in the vicinity of Israel, fit well with the current situation or the situation in the summer
of 2014. At the same time there was a civil war in Syria, Libya, Iraq and an Israeli-Arab war in
the summer of 2014: the Gaza war.

Let's go through the prophesied conflicts in the Middle East again in detail: First, we would
have an Israeli-Arab conflict brewing a few weeks or months before the outbreak of war in
Europe, and one reason for worldwide peace efforts as well as peace demonstrations could.

Then we would have the Syrian crisis. The civil war has been raging here since 2011. And
since Syria (allegedly) no longer has any weapons of mass destruction, US intervention would
be conceivable in the relatively short term. The fleet concentrations in the Mediterranean
predicted by Irlmaier above are likely to be related to a Western military action threatened
against Syria. Finally, there is no mention in the quote of these fleets firing at each other.
Western and Russian warships would therefore meet off the Syrian coast. There could also
be a peace movement in connection with Syria, because here, too, a great danger would be
brewing for everyone to see.
Finally, we have the Turkish-Greek war immediately before the really big escalation in Europe.
From today's perspective, this conflict appears by far the most unlikely. After all, Turkey and
Greece are both NATO members. This would therefore be a war within NATO - and the
aggressor Turkey would have to reckon with a concentrated counter-attack by NATO. On the
other hand, the conspicuously often prophesied recapture of Istanbul speaks very well for a
war between Turkey and a NATO member. On closer inspection, the Turkish-Greek war is
very well rooted in European prophecy. It is obvious that naval units from both sides would be
involved in this conflict. As a result, the predictions of fleet concentrations in the Mediterranean
and Eastern Mediterranean appear somewhat confused, but in terms of the omens it would
ultimately be irrelevant whose warships were in the Mediterranean. If, in the summer of year
X, more and more warships were gradually massed in the eastern Mediterranean, that would
definitely be a really, very serious sign.
The further course of the war would then consist of a Russian invasion of the Middle East, with
Turkey being the first to be overrun. Then there would be fighting near Israel between Russian-
Arab units on the one hand and Israeli-American-Saudi units on the other. According to
European sources, the US and Israel should be defeated. The main argument for this would
be that Israel/Palestine would come under European control after the end of the war. While
the sources speak of Christian control, a continued US presence in the region can certainly
be ruled out, as the US faces a long period of domestic decline that would include civil war.

As the war progressed, the Russian troops would then be pushed onto the defensive in Central
Europe and finally defeated after about three months. About three months later, Western
European troops would arrive in the Middle East. This also coincides with the statement by
the monk Paisios, according to which the Russians are staying in the Israel area for about six
months.
The Russians in the Middle East would probably have switched sides by then. From the
Russian point of view, this would be justifiable if Russia's war aim was not a victory over
Europe, but the exclusion of American influence from Europe. This would be about three
months after the beginning of the war or after the three-day darkness if the transcontinental
and especially maritime infrastructure of the USA were destroyed as a result of the natural
disasters (pole shift).

Unfortunately, I am not aware of any source that addresses and summarises all of the
predicted sub-scenarios in the Middle East to provide a solid overall picture. Each of the
sources cited has its individual focus, and one sometimes wonders why a particular source
does not also mention what other sources predict.

In terms of omens and advance warning, however, all of this is not a major problem. Just keep
an eye on the eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East, particularly Israel and Syria. Then
you wait for the great cry for peace and remember that all this should come to a head towards
the middle of summer of year X.

Everyone shouts: "Peace, Shalom!"

As already mentioned, in the immediate run-up to the great war, a European or even worldwide
peace movement could be expected - according to the obvious interpretation of some of the
predictions of the "old" seers. Alois Irlmaier's »Everything calls for peace, Schalom!« has
already been quoted. Here are some other sources:

Garcilaso de la Vega (1982, Germany) is a stigmatised Argentinean Father who had several
visions between 1980 and 1982 in Maria Laach in the Eifel region:
World War III breaks out when talk of peace is at its peak.177

Veronica Lueken (1972, USA):

Your world is screaming: peace, peace where there is no peace. You associate with devils; an atheist's word is not
178
binding, an atheist's promises are not true. You fall for the plan like sheep for slaughter."

»Like sheep to the slaughter« once again addresses the unbelievable, incomprehensible
collective ignorance in Central Europe and Germany that preceded the »surprise attack«. The
atheists mentioned could well appear in public as Christians or other believers in God.

Several years after her above prediction, Veronica Lueken said on July 1, 1985:
While the world is calling: peace, peace and salvation, they [the politicians] are not looking in that direction [you
know that from the Iraq war in 2003...]. They rely on the scientists of the world who are always seeking and never
come to the truth. These scientists have now created arsenals of ammunition, warheads, and missiles with which
179
they seek to gain world domination."

Around four months before this vision, on March 11, 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev was elected
General Secretary of the CPSU. And already in April 1985 he propagated his reform policy at
a plenary session of the Central Committee of the CPSU. In February 1986 - seven months
after V. Lueken's war warning - he then spoke for the first time about glasnost (openness,
transparency). Veronica Lueken's »Peace, Peace« should therefore be projected onto the
period after the thaw between East and West, onto the period after Gorbachev. Because with
Gorbachev, the general hope for relaxation and peace was initially so great that there could
not be any "struggle" for world peace on the streets: in 1989 the wall fell, in 1990 German
reunification came, in 1991 the USSR disintegrated, in 1998 was the ruble crisis and Russia
had enough to do with itself. It was not until around 2008 that Russia returned to Western
consciousness as a real »problem case«.

The belief in "eternal peace" was so great in the early days of Gorbachev's glasnost and
perestroika that people in the West even spoke of the "end of history", the end of the previous
history of wars. And it was Gorbachev in particular who inspired the esoteric scene in the West
in such a way that there has now been a surprising, unforeseeable positive break in the line
of human destiny.

It is therefore almost mandatory to relate Veronica Lueken's prediction of July 1985 to the
post-Gorbachev era or even to the post-Yeltsin era. This brings us back to Vladimir Putin.

Ida Peerdeman (30 August 1947, Amsterdam):

It is so-called peace, but in reality it is not so. Everything is camouflage from the world.180

Other prophetic references to a peace talk and cry as the ultimate omen appeared as early as
the 19th century and even long before. However, I would not waste any thought as to whether
and who could have copied from whom, but would simply be very attentive at the time of year
in question - midsummer. There are simply too many sources predicting the "peace cry"
aspect. And often enough it is again the most credible source. In addition, a peace movement
just before the outbreak of war in Central Europe would go well with a society that likes to
ignore great dangers for far too long and then suddenly believes that it can still make a
difference, even though the clock has long since run out.

Seen in this light, it could be criticised that the participants in such peace demonstrations
really don't want peace at the last moment, but are simply afraid. If they really wanted peace,
they would have demonstrated much earlier because they would have known that such a
war machine cannot be stopped at the last moment.

Wessel Dietrich Eilert (1833, Dortmund, 2nd version):

This war will break out from the east. I am afraid of [the] East. This War will break out very quickly. In the evening
one will say: "Peace, peace", and it is no peace, and in the morning the enemies are already at the door...181

It sounds as if there were still negotiations with Russia one day before the outbreak of war,
and as if this "peace, peace" came from politicians. But it is also possible that the cry for
peace mainly refers to the Middle East, and thus this is just another deception, since the real
danger is looming from a completely different direction.

Abbé Curique (1872, France):

The enemy will come like a flood from the east. In the evening they will say "Peace, peace!" cry, but the next
morning they will be at our door.182
Here, of course, the identical wording is striking: peace, peace and the enemy at the door. For
the sake of completeness, it should also be mentioned that there is a kind of "template" for the
talk of peace before the outbreak of war, namely the Bible.

Bible/Thessalonians (50 AD):

When they shall say, "Peace is not; there is no danger" - then destruction shall come upon them swiftly, like labour
pains upon a pregnant woman, and they shall not escape.183

Bible/Ezekiel (c. 590 BC):

You are bringing with you Persians, Cushites [say, from Sudan] and Libyans... and Gomer [from eastern Turkey,
perhaps Kurds?] and all his army, the house of Togarmah [?] who live in the north, with all theirs Army; yes you
lead many nations with you. ... When my people Israel dwell in safety, then you will set out. And you will come from
your place, from the extreme north [there is Russia!], you and many peoples with you, all on horseback, a great
army and a mighty power, you will come up against my people of Israel like a cloud covering the land.184

If Israel "lives safely", i.e. is militarily strong, has no opponent to be taken seriously, and all of
a sudden a powerful opponent comes from the north, then this corresponds to the basic
features of European prophecy.

Fundamental critics of prophecy, who believe that it is impossible to truly see the future, like
to feel vindicated when they rediscover predictions of modern prophecy in the Bible. Then it
says it's "written off." But if one assumes that there is real clairvoyance, then it stands to reason
that seers from different centuries or even millennia simply saw the same events. Of course,
it still makes a significant difference whether an event was only foreseen 100 or 2000 years
ago. For the more predetermined the future becomes, the more we would have to question
our notion of free will and our pride in mankind's technological and cultural achievements. If
the power of a providence were so great, even virtually omnipotent, that it lasted for millennia,
it would cast doubt on what we call human creativity.
As far as the purely clairvoyant abilities of some of the biblical prophets or rather seers are
concerned, they were certainly absolutely outstanding. This does not mean, however, that this
quality was retained in all aspects when it was written down. As is well known, the Bible lacks
a clear reference to the Holocaust, one of the most decisive events in the history of the Jewish
people. But if the Bible already prophesies the return of the Jews to the »promised land«, it
would actually be logical that the Bible also predicts the Holocaust. After all, the founding of
the State of Israel and the Holocaust are closely linked in terms of time and cause!

The biblical view of the future is obviously not free from large, glaring gaps. You can interpret
that however you want. Personally, I am inclined to believe that the writers of the Bible
censored some things. Because once again: The Holocaust and the founding of the State of
Israel are so closely related in terms of causation and timing that one cannot even mention
one without the other. One does not simply "forget" or "overlook" the Holocaust. Never. If so,
then he is kept secret.
And with intent. But if it was intentional, what other intentions were there? Where and in which
parts of the Bible?

From a parapsychological point of view, this means that the Bible's predictions of the future
must definitely be cross-checked with the statements of other psychics to ensure that one
does not fall into the blind spots of religious or other propaganda from 2000 years ago.
 Europe

Economy and War

In May 2012, a book about the background to the global financial and euro crisis was published
on the German-language book market, entitled The Biggest Raid in History. Why the
industrious are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer.

The book by economists Marc Friedrich and Matthias Weik, who were completely unknown at
the time, developed into a bestseller. It was on the Spiegel non-fiction bestseller list for a
whopping 82 weeks, and the two authors had to tour the television channels ARD, ZDF, 3Sat,
SWR and WDR.

The following year, a two-hour documentary about the euro crisis entitled Eupoly, which is well
worth seeing, appeared in which the makers interviewed Marc Friedrich and Matthias Weik,
along with other competent interlocutors. At the very end of the documentary - as a final word,
so to speak - on the euro tragedy that had been unfolding for two hours beforehand, Marc
Friedrich and Matthias Weik were asked how they think the euro thing will end. A best-case
scenario and a worst-case scenario were asked for. Here is Marc Friedrich's answer:
Oh. The best-case scenario?... That the solution will come up tomorrow, and that tomorrow the politicians will
make a 180-degree turn and a solution will fall to earth out of the blue.
But I don't assume so. There IS [emphasised] no solution. The crisis has been with us since 2008. The impacts
are getting closer and stronger. And if there were a solution, politicians would have had it for us long ago. There
is no solution. The solution will be the crash.
The worst case scenario is war. Clearly! If you look into the past, with all the economic upheavals, the solution
was always war or civil war. And we are creating the breeding ground for extremists, separatists, nationalists and
possibly for civil war-like conditions.

The answer from Matthias Weik:

The worst case scenario?... I don't think we want to think about that. But think about it, in the future a chancellor
will appear in front of the cameras and tell people: 'Dear people, your pension is gone, your life insurance, pension
insurance and the money in the savings account too.
I think we have a worst-case scenario that we are far from imagining. Even worse if the whole problem were
solved with a war. We look into the past - and problems like this were always solved with wars.’186

The two economists certainly did not say that the war was the "final solution" with such clarity
in their television appearances. In the Eupoly documentation, however, it comes as a closing
word.

So the state of the economy is a portent of war. There is an inner connection. And Marc
Friedrich and Matthias Weik are by no means the only economists who have recognized this
connection and are also openly communicating it. Our only problem as "normal" citizens is
that we simply do not want to recognize and, above all, do not want to believe that economic
competition will inevitably end in economic war and that economic war will inevitably end in a
real war at some point.

We »normal« citizens think and believe that there are simply far too many righteous,
responsible and insightful people working in our economic and social system, who will sound
the alarm in good time when the system threatens to go down the wrong path towards war.
Instead of seeing through the system and its mechanisms, we trust that we have enough
"spiritual allies" in this system who will prevent the worst from happening in good time. We
hope and believe that we will not be betrayed. At least not to this inhuman degree. After all,
what else would we have a democracy for?

Civil Wars in Europe

If you start reading the European prophecy literature, you will soon come across numerous
predictions of civil wars in the run-up to the Third World War, for example in Italy and France,
whereby these civil wars appear in the sources almost without exception as a kind of civil war
chaos and not as civil wars with halfway clear ones front lines, armies fighting each other, etc.

What also quickly becomes apparent is that civil wars break out more or less simultaneously
in the different countries of Europe. A suitable example from the Embassy of La Salette (1846,
France):
France, Italy, Spain and England will be at war. The blood will flow in the streets. The French will fight with the
French, the Italian with the Italian. Eventually there will be a general war, which will be horrendous.187

The first line reads a little as if France, Italy, Spain and England were all at war with each
other. This is then made more precise in the next few lines: The blood is flowing on the streets.
This points to cities where unrest often breaks out first. The next sentence clearly speaks of
civil wars in France and Italy. The »general war« that follows suggests that all the previous
sentences refer to civil war scenes, including civil wars in England and Spain.

Just 20 years ago, such forecasts of civil war for Europe read like hysterical yelling about the
end of the world. Europe was doing well economically. Who would have wanted a revolution
back then? Today, on the other hand, civil war-like unrest in France and Italy of all places
would go well with the euro problem. Although it has been possible to contain the acute
sources of fire in Europe over the past three years (Ireland, Portugal, Spain), France and Italy
are now getting more and more of a hit economically and domestically. And should those two
states really start to tip over, they will be too big to save. Then the euro is history.

One rarely learns anything concrete about the cause of the civil wars in the respective
prophecies. What is clear, however, is that these civil wars should break out shortly before the
Russian attack. This means that immediately before the Russian attack, a dramatic crisis of
confidence between large parts of the population and the respective governments is emerging,
especially for the traditionally economically strong states of Europe.

I am quite deliberately speaking of a dramatic crisis of confidence, because even great

economic hardship does not automatically and inevitably lead to violent conflicts. This means
that European prophecy points to an unbridgeable rift between Europe's political elites and
the European peoples, coinciding with very serious economic problems and immediately prior
to the Russian onslaught; in other words: at the same time as the increasing tensions with
Russia.
The pattern of simultaneous unrest and uprisings in several states of Central and Western
Europe, which is easily recognizable in European prophecy, clearly points to the euro crisis or
a crisis of the entire European project.
Since the left-wing party SYRIZA (»Coalition of the Radical Left«) came to power in Greece
on January 25, 2015, in addition to the economic hardship and the dissatisfaction of large
parts of the population in the European crisis states, an important factor has emerged, namely
a serious too increasing political will to change the current system in Europe.
At the moment (February 2015) there was only such a change of power in Greece, and it is
not yet foreseeable how things will develop there, but the elites of Europe are now aware that
the example of Greece could set a precedent and with it the European project is threatened
in its current form. Take, for example, the front page of Die Welt am Sonntag on February 1,
2015, where the term »uprising« is actually already being used in a nonsensical manner:

Fig. 25: "Welt am Sonntag, 1. "February 2015, front page

'The darts around Sfl Angela Merkel's head bear the colors of Greece, Spain (left), France and Italy (right).

In Spain, the next rebels are already in the starting blocks: the left-wing alliance Podemos
(»We can«). Inspired by the change of power in Athens on January 25, there was already a
large demonstration in Madrid on January 31, 2015 with around 100,000 Podemos
sympathisers. In early 2015 polls, Podemos tied with the conservative PP with about 26
percent support and about 6 percent ahead of the PSOE (centre-left). However, Podemos was
only founded in March 2014! This huge increase in potential voters in less than a year
illustrates the dynamics of the situation in Spain. The next parliamentary elections are
scheduled for the end of 2015.

Seers from the Waldviertel (1959, Austria, published in 1980):

Before the outbreak of the great war, the left holds a triumphal march.188
Significantly, the new Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras has been Vice-President of the
European Left since 2010. In the 2014 European elections he was the leading candidate of
the European Left for the European Parliament. As we shall see below, a left (communist)
government takeover is predicted by some seers in Italy.

If one believes the European prophecy, the actual cause of the entire domestic political
development in Europe, namely the lack of competitiveness of the economy in the crisis
countries, would not only not change, but the situation in Italy and France in particular would
become even worse.

As far as the above prediction of the seer from the Waldviertel is concerned, the question
naturally arises as to how many individual victories this "victory procession" would have to
include in order to count as such? Does that mean a larger number of real left-wing
government changes or just a large influx of left-wing mass demonstrations?

The table below shows how often civil war-like unrest is predicted for Europe.

As you can see, there are civil war predictions for Europe from Germany, Austria, Switzerland, France
and Italy, among others, and have been since at least the 18th century. In the Q column, I have tried to
consider the credibility of the sources. The values are based on the German school grades (1 = very
good, 2 = good, ... 6 = bad).

France — or: That's the Chaos!

In the case of the civil war in France, essentially everything revolves around the city of Paris.
The French, or rather the Parisians themselves, are supposed to burn their own capital, just
before the attack from the east. As a result of the war, "fire would fall from the sky" and
completely destroy Paris. The fire from heaven might mean an atomic bomb. However, if one
believes the European prophecy as a whole, this would be the only nuclear explosion - apart
from Prague - over continental Europe.189

I am aware of around 20 (!) prophecies that predict the fall of Paris; Sources from the 18th to
20th centuries, mainly from France, but also from Italy, Germany and Austria. I don't know of
anything comparable to any city in Germany. At best, the predictions about Cologne are
similarly prominent, but these are far fewer sources, and Cologne is not to be destroyed.
There, or in front of the gates of Cologne, there is said to be "only" one big battle.

However, what interests us at this point in connection with Paris is not the ultimate destruction
of the city, but the unrest that broke out there beforehand, since these unrests enable a
connection to the current situation in Paris and the domestic political and social situation in
Paris and France are an omen would.

Relatively few but very good sources comment on the unrest in Paris itself. One of them is
France's most famous fortune teller: Marie-Anne Lenormand (1772-1843). Most readers will
know Marie-Anne Lenormand from the Lenormand divination cards, which are part of the
standard assortment of every esoteric department.

Marie-Anne Lenormand spent most of her life in Paris. Even during her lifetime she was a well-
known fortune teller throughout Europe. Her customers included artists, the rich and powerful.
Her prominent clientele is documented by files from the French national archive, including
police surveillance reports, because the lady was not always popular with those in power.
According to surveillance records of the Paris police that are still available, the Russian Tsar
Alexander I.
and Austria's Foreign Minister von Metternich among her clients.190 The fact that Marie-Anne
Lenormand was also the fortune teller of Napoleon's wife Josephine de Beauharnais is now
considered historically proven.191

Regarding the fate of her hometown, the fortune teller said:

The Parisian himself, with anger and despair in his heart and filled with the lesson which the Muscovite [see below]
gave us, will support with a furious hand the efforts with which the barbarians wish to destroy the kings of the cities.
Burning torches are thrown onto the roofs of the houses.
The whole of Paris is now more of an immense conflagration.192

The seer describes a situation in which France is under attack from outside, but at the same
time the Parisians are setting their own city on fire.

Such a prediction was completely incomprehensible in the middle of the 19th century, seemed
grotesque and completely absurd. After all, Paris was and is the pride of the French, one of
the most beautiful cities in the world and a destination for tourists from every continent. Has
anyone ever heard of a people burning their own capital?' At the beginning of the 21st century
there is suddenly a possible explanation: the arsonists could be young people with foreign
roots who no longer see a future in French society. So it wouldn't be "their" city that's burning.
Anyone familiar with the prophecies about the fate of the French capital must have followed
the news in late autumn 2005 with some astonishment, how in the suburbs of Paris and the
suburbs all over France cars and other things were set on fire for weeks, mainly by frustrated
young people from immigrant families ; 41 percent of all young people in Paris under the age
of 18 have a migration background" 193 . Between October 27 and November 20, 2005,
10,300 cars194 were burned down in France nationwide, 4,200 of them in the greater Paris
area. 274 public and private buildings were destroyed. Already before the actual riots began,
around 90 vehicles were said to have been infected every night across France, "a total of
28,000" since the beginning of 2005.195
After the twelfth "night of riots," then Interior Minister Sarkozy declared a state of emergency.
When Prime Minister Dominique Villepin was asked in a television interview whether he
wanted to use the military to end the unrest, he said that things were “not there yet”.196

The reason for the nationwide riots were two young people who had died in an accident while
fleeing the police. That was the classic spark that exploded the powder keg.

It should be noted that the 2005 riots in France took place before the outbreak of the global
financial and euro crisis in 2008. Since 2008, the economic situation of young people (up to
and including 25 years of age) in France as a whole (not just immigrant children) has not
improved a bit. Unemployment has risen even further. Frustrations could build up for about
ten more years. The average youth unemployment rate in France in 2005 was 19.5 percent,
which was far too high. In 2009 it was 25.2 percent, in December 2014 it was still 25.2 percent.
Mind you: the average youth unemployment. Unemployment is almost twice as high among
young males with a migration background (44 percent in 2009).

* There is one exception. When Napoleon conquered Moscow in 1812, the Russians set fire to their capital.
But this was a military decision, so that the French troops would not have a chance of survival in Moscow
in the Russian winter. It was about saving Russia, which actually worked. And it wasn't the people who set
the city on fire, but hired arsonists. And most of Moscow's citizens had already left the city.

Alois Irlmaier published the following prediction in 1950:

The great city with the high iron tower is on fire. But our own people set it on fire, not those who marched here from
197
the east.

The fires must therefore have been set immediately before or at the same time as the Russian
attack. The fire in Paris and the Russian attack therefore fell within a time window of just a few
days.

Marie-Anne Lenormand also predicts that the Parisians will set fire to their own city just when
an external enemy is approaching. In memory of:
The Parisian, even with anger and despair in his heart [...] will support with a furious hand the efforts with which
the barbarians want to destroy the kings of the cities.198

The seeress does not say who the barbarians are. Only Russians and Germans would come
into question. It also remains unclear to Marie-Anne Lenormand how far the barbarians are
from the city. According to Marie-Julie Jahenny (1850-1941, France), however, the Russians
coming from northern Switzerland would come within about 20 kilometres of Paris!199
Interestingly, the German-French border will not be crossed, according to their information.
Marie-Julie Jahenny bore stigmata (wounds of Christ), her case was investigated and the
Bishop of Nantes was convinced of the supernatural nature of the stigmata.

A reference to Russia can also be found in Marie-Anne Lenormand's "Muscovite" and its
"Doctrine", which fills the hearts of the insurgents. The "Muscovite" could initially be equated
with a corresponding ruler in Moscow. However, no lesson is attributed to Putin, although one
could describe his advocacy of a multipolar world and emancipation from US dominance as
“conceptually closed”. But that is not yet a "doctrine" or ideology. So does Marie-Anne
Lenormand perhaps mean Lenin and a yet to come future renaissance of communism? Will
Putin still take on the role of an ideologue and "world liberator" and come out as a communist?
... Maybe things will clear up here with time.

As for the clairvoyant quality of Marie-Anne Lenormand, it should be noted that Moscow only
became the Russian capital in 1918. From 1712 to 1918 this was St. Petersburg. Marie-Anne
Lenormand lived from 1772 to 1843.

If anyone speculates that Alois Irlmaier "copied" Marie Anne Lenormand, the following Irlmaier
prediction should be submitted later, which came to the public in 2002 from private ownership
(a four-page manuscript):
'First the city with the iron tower will set itself on fire and revolt with the youth. The stink goes around the world.’

In my 2009 book Alois Irlmaier - a man says what he sees, I analysed the content of the entire
text of the quote in question (the so-called "courier text") on 15 pages. Even then I came to
the conclusion that the text must be authentic despite its unsatisfactory documentation, i.e. it
actually goes back to Alois Irlmaier.

It would be idle to speculate whether Alois Irlmaier was referring to the riots in 2005 or a future
series of fires in Paris only when the war broke out. It is crucial that - as far as I know - in the
other sources of European prophecy, the fire in Paris is nowhere related to youth. One can
therefore assume that Alois Irlmaier correctly foresaw the economic and psychological
situation of Parisian youth in the period before the Russian attack.

Let's now see whether and to what extent the French public is already aware that the country's
existing social problems could lead to a social explosion: On November 6, 2014, the German
Wirtschaftswoche carried an article about the misery in France entitled "François Hollande's
half-time record is shocking". The article develops the following scenario for France:
Chaos and anarchy have reigned in France since Sunday. In the face of violent protests against the austerity
policies dictated by Brussels and Berlin, President François Hollande has decided to exit the euro and reintroduce
the franc. Until the new old currency is available again, the banks will remain closed, cash withdrawals from ATMs
are limited to 40 euros per week and bank cards. The French are looting shops across the country. Prime Minister
Manuel Valls has resigned. His successor, Michel Cabestany, has formed a government of national unity.
 Fig. 26: Advertising for the film production ANARCHY

Such pessimism is rather atypical for Wirtschaftswoche. And indeed: Wirtschaftswoche quotes
only one other source, namely the French television channel France 4! Business Week
continues:
The horror scenario comes from the series "Anarchy," which the state television channel France 4 started just
halfway into Hollande's tenure. The special thing about it is that only the first episode was penned by professional
writers. In the next eight weeks, the mostly young viewers of the channel will continue the series. It will be interesting
to see what future they envision.200

The France 4 advertising banner also said: »This is chaos, make history.« This can be
translated as:
This is the chaos - welcome to a new chapter in the story.

At the height of the euro crisis in 2012, the danger of civil wars in Europe was also pointed out
in the German mass media. Former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt warned in November 2012:
»We may be facing a revolution in Europe.« 201 A few weeks later, on January 10, 2013, the
former Bavarian Prime Minister Edmund Stoiber warned in a Maybrit-Illner program (ZDF) that
he saw a "very tough test of democracy" for the following countries: Greece, Spain, Portugal,
Ireland , Italy and Slovenia. A few minutes later in the same program, the business journalist
Frank Lehmann said: "We are facing a revolution in these countries." Also at the table was
SPD chairman Sigmar Gabriel, who made no move to dismiss the specter of impending
revolutions in Europe from the panel discussion to expel, just like the also present Dieter
Hundt, in his capacity President of the Confederation of German Employers' Associations
(BDA).

In this program at the beginning of 2013 you could clearly see that practically the entire political
class in Germany knows very well that the economic crisis can one day turn into open,
uncontrollable turmoil in several European countries.
 The Fire in Paris as an Omen for all of Europe

Back to Paris: Of course it is also a question of interpretation to a certain extent, but it would
be very obvious that future youth riots in France, like in 2005, would be closely linked to the
problem of immigrant children and immigrant policy as a whole. This gives the matter a pan-
European dimension.

Historians and sociologists know that social rifts open up in times of need. Instead of a lack of
integration, one could also speak of a »social predetermined breaking point«. If the pressure
on a system continues to increase, cracks first appear where the binding forces are lowest.
Every materials researcher knows that;

The old Vikings took this into account when building boats by using practically unbreakable
branch forks for the boat skeleton.

If the proportion of the population with a migration background feels too disadvantaged
economically for a long time, then at some point it will explode. That alone wouldn't be so bad.
It can bang, flare and smoke. It gets really bad when there are deaths, for example when the
army intervenes. By then at the latest, the entire European multicultural policy would be put to
the test. Seen in this way, the fire in Paris would be the pyre of a social illusion and a pipe
dream that is not only French, but pan-European.

Of course, the conditions in France cannot be transferred 1:1 to Germany. The German
economy is (still) much higher, and the proportion of foreigners or immigrant children who
actually practice Islam is significantly lower here. Turkey was also never a colony of
Germany.

As far as France and Paris are concerned, the war year could be made more difficult by the
fact that French Muslims are showing solidarity with the Arabs there as a result of the new
Arab-Israeli Middle East war and that anti-Israeli demonstrations are taking place in Paris and
elsewhere in response to the simultaneous threat to Palestine. Something like this took place
in Paris in 2014 during the weeks of the Gaza war.

And the attacks in Paris on January 7, 2015 - keyword Charlie Hebdo - with their Muslim
perpetrators can hardly be interpreted in this context other than in the sense of another bad
omen. Although a kind of national will for unity was evident immediately after the attacks in
France, just a few days later the French (and German) media were only concerned with the
question of how to fight terrorism better. i.e. Despite all the talk of tolerance, in the end the
exclusion and distrust of fellow Muslims only gets worse.

The loss of solidarity is increasing, and with it the probability that the prophesied self-inflicted
fire in the French capital will occur.

Finally, three notes: On November 10, 2013, the French weekly Le Point wrote:
More than seven in ten French (72 percent) believe that current social discontent is leading to a large-scale
202
movement.
 Fig. 27: German newspaper rack on January 17, 2015

On January 19, 2015, shortly after the terrorist attacks in Paris, the well-known French writer
Michel Houellebecq warned of a civil war in France in his first public appearance after the
Paris attacks in Cologne.

On page 187 you can see the cover photos of the Paris attacks in German print media in the
week beginning January 17th. In fact, the attacks have increased distrust of Muslims in
Germany and France.
 Germany - On the Edge of Incompetence
In the case of Germany, there are also sources that predict civil war-like conditions, but since
the corresponding unrest is only supposed to break out (very) shortly before the start of the
war or only with the start of the war, these predictions would also be relatively useless in terms
of signs and advance warning. Anyone who waits until the glass in the supermarket around
the corner shatters and a polyphonic tatütata resounds through the night would definitely be
waiting too long.

Predictions on economic development in Germany before the outbreak of the unrest are
therefore more useful in terms of signs. And there are enough of such predictions, in fact so
many that the economic situation in Germany before the war can be sketched clearly enough.

Above (page 92/93) I had already dealt with a prediction made by Buchela in connection with
our rather best friends, which actually only allows the conclusion that the euro will fail and that
the euro - let's put it pathetically - will plunge us all into misfortune :
... it gets angry with the money. There will be inflation, not as bad as it was in the 1920s or 1930s, but still at a level
where money can't buy much.
But that doesn't mean that the rulers in Germany have ruined the money. Everything will be destroyed from abroad.
Partly because of the incompetence of the others, partly out of malice to humiliate the Germans because they had
become too powerful for them after losing the war.
Even if they act kindly towards you, they have never forgiven or even forgotten. They will drag you down into the
201
abyss of their incompetence.

After that, there would be a collapse of public order - not only after Buchela. Buchela does not
tell us how Germany later fought its way back out of the "abyss" and overcame the chaos. I
had already tried to explain how and why, but other German visionaries have said it clearly
enough: Germany will definitely come out of the abyss again.

Before we turn to further predictions about the economic development in Germany, let's look
at some predictions about the unrest in Germany. According to the aforementioned Irlmaier
friend south of Munich, the unrest in the greater Munich area would not break out until
immediately after the start of the war, but only lasted three weeks there. Within this short time,
however, there would be complete chaos in the Munich area, partly because the water supply
would collapse. Irlmaier had personally visited his friend south of Munich and "seen" the future
events there directly.

A statement by mother Erna Stieglitz also fits this scenario in the Munich area. The following
statement was published in 1980 and goes back to an oral tradition.

Erna Stieglitz (1975, Augsburg):

The main danger for the area roughly bordered by the towns of Mindelheim and Altötting, Pfaffenhofen and
Weilheim, i.e. for the central Bavarian region, consists in destruction caused by terrorism, looting, arson, murder
and manslaughter. The rule of thumb returns, lawlessness!
204
Starving city dwellers are becoming robbers of the farmers!

Munich is right in the middle. To Irlmaier text published in 1992 states:

Then a large number of strangers come into the land [see page 214]. There is high inflation.
Money loses more and more value.
The revolution follows soon after.
Then the Russians invaded the West overnight.205

According to this quote, the "revolution" in Germany would clearly break out before the war.
How could the contradiction to the situation around Munich be clarified? Well, quite simply: it
could be that in Germany, like after the First World War, unrest breaks out in some areas
and not in other areas or only later. In the overall context of the forecasts for the civil wars in
France and Italy, it would in any case be expected that the unrest in Germany would only
follow the unrest in the two neighbouring countries.

However, at this point in time, the time window before war would be tiny.

Logically, one could say that given that the political elites in Europe and especially in Germany
have their destiny so closely tied to the euro, they can be expected to cling to the euro to the
bitter end. That would mean that the weaker states would be dragged along and financially
doped by the stronger states for as long as possible. And the moral pressure on Germany as
"Europe's traditional bringer of evil" (see World War I and World War II) is likely to become so
overwhelming that Germany does not dare to pull the ripcord and say goodbye to the euro.

Accordingly, Germany would remain the guarantor of stability to the very end and, as captain,
would dutifully persevere on the sinking ship to the bitter end. Certainly an ugly picture, but at
least it would be a sinking ship and not a bunker under the bombed Reich Chancellery in
devastated Berlin-Mitte. So, in that sense, we're making some progress.

Germany's perseverance to the very end could in turn be interpreted to mean that the unrest
in Germany only broke out very shortly before the war. To put it simply: the French and Italians
freak out when they don't have enough money for baguettes and pasta - the Germans only
rebel when they finally understand that their pensions have been blown down the chimney
with sacred oaths and empty promises.

Buchela (1983, Rhineland):

Don't think that the days of hard work are over once and for all. I see hardships awaiting you in the next decade.
You will have to say goodbye to cherished pleasures, to vacations and permanent free time, and to devote yourself
more to work. There will be no more talk of a 35-hour week. Many will voluntarily try to get more work.206

We've had this situation for a long time now among the low-income earners, the »little people«,
who were rather Buchela's target group. However, Buchela made a mistake when it came to
the “next decade”; after all, things were more or less always going up until the New Economy
crashed at the turn of the millennium. Buchela is also wrong in other places with her dates,
but she foresaw many things in the period from about 1990 to the present day very precisely.
Buchela further:
But the good years will never come back. And not only in Germany will there be a time of chaos and ferment until
207
1989 [wrong date], it will be like that all over the world.
Rents will skyrocket. You have to reckon with the fact that in ten years [wrong date] you will
have to pay almost half your income to those who built the roof over your head, who own the
walls, the land and the plot. 208

This is now a reality and a topic on the front pages every few months.

A power that you cannot keep an eye on wants to rob you of the fruits of your sweat.
Don't think that in twenty years' time [2003] you could buy the same thing for a thousand marks as you can buy
today. [...] They will kill your money and abuse your faith. Times will come when those who have trust cannot bite
their daily bread - because they lack it. Beware of those who want to deceive you with the law, they are not
honest.209

That too is now a reality. In 2013, 500,000 pensioners aged 65 and over were affected by
poverty in old age or had to claim basic state security. Incidentally, Buchela recommended
hedging against these risks with real estate and silver210. For whatever reason, she wrote
nothing about gold.

Through this connection with those countries [EU partners UK and F] you will have to pay one
mark for a simple roll - and you will be happy to pay if you get it fresh and not baked.211

At the end of 2014, a bread roll cost about 60 cents from my baker around the corner. At the
local supermarket there was a simple roll for 40 cents. With a D-Mark-Euro conversion rate of
around 2:1, this is another bull's eye for Buchela. And if you want, you can also interpret
Buchela's statement to the effect that she also foresaw the decline of the bakery trade -
keyword »bakery shops«.

Fig. 28: Focus, November 12, 2012

 Fig. 29: Bild newspaper, May 3, 2014

Fig. 30: Bild newspaper, May 14, 2013

Now a prediction from Buchela about the finance and insurance industry. As a reminder, all of
this was released over 30 years ago!

Those who take care of you will build palaces and castles with your money, and they will have so much money that
they will be among the most powerful in the world. Kings will have to go to them to borrow money. They will give it
to kings and ask that you be entrusted to their care from infancy to the grave. You will give them tenths of your
money more than three times - and, when trouble overtakes you, you will stand like beggars at the iron doors. And
they will persuade you and prove you wrong. Beware of this power; the king will not and cannot protect you from
212
her.
 Fig. 31: Die Welt, 18 "February 2010
Banks call for the obligation to make private pension provisions - the association warns of more dramatic Poverty in
old age - citizens stick their heads in the sand - but consumer advocates do not want paternalism.

Buchela describes a general shift in power from politics to finance, then a situation in which
politics "betrays and sells" the people to finance. Specifically, it is about the private pension.
The years 2002 and 2005 are suitable as a time benchmark, when the state signalled to the
citizen with the introduction of the Riester and Rürup pension that the usual state pension will
no longer be sufficient in the future. The new pension models were preceded by a cut in the
usual state pensions in 2000/2001.

On December 11, 2014, T-Online, among others, reported: "Error in reasoning - the big Riester
disappointment". The article that follows states that the expected returns will be "significantly
lower", mainly because of the low interest rates of late. Since the Riester and Rürup pensions
are subsidised by the state, the loss in many real private pensions is of course all the greater.

It is not yet possible to claim that the pensioners are like "beggars in front of the iron doors".
But as a result of the Lehman Brothers crash, it has already been shown how thousands of
bona fide savers were downright dumped by the banks when they complained of their
disappointment at the total loss of their investment and the bad advice they received. Overall,
Buchela is aiming for the period 2002-2010. The introduction of compulsory health insurance,
which came into force in 2007, also falls within this time window.

When Buchela then speaks in her almost childishly flowery language of palaces and castles
that the insurance industry builds, this initially steers the association in a completely wrong
direction, namely broadening. Nowadays, however, one builds upwards - i.e. high-rise
buildings. Frankfurt am Main can serve as a point of orientation. The high-rise construction
boom there began in Buchela's time, but the actual skyscrapers were only built after the
publication of her memoirs; Buildings with a height of 170 metres and more (now 9 of them)
were not erected (or ready for occupancy) until 1990.

Although Germany is not yet in the euro abyss predicted by Buchela, Buchela seems to have
had the first and second decades of the third millennium quite clearly on her mental screen,
even if she apparently believed that all of this would happen much earlier.
Alois Irlmaier is also said to have foreseen the euro crisis. The following statement has been
handed down from him.
213
When politicians hold so vui [much] for zammarenna o fangan [conferences], then it doesn't last long.
Spiegel-Online wrote on July 20, 2011:
Euro crisis summit - crash, help, crash, help - instead of a master plan, the EU leaders want to stabilise the euro in
small steps. Now they meet again...214

... and on June 20, 2012:

The stock markets are excited. Spain trembles before bankruptcy. The most important heads of state and
government jet from one summit to the next.215

Superficially, the euro crisis front has calmed down a bit in the meantime, but if you get more
detailed information, you realise that the euro cow is far from off the ice. This is what you could
read on T-Online on December 10, 2014:
Analysts warn: The euro crisis is coming back - at a bad time ... Greece could trigger a new debt crisis.216

If you take the years 2011/2012, the years of the euro crisis peak so far - then the question
arises as to what Irlmaiers "doesn't last long" mean. Personally, I would not misinterpret these
few words too much, but instead follow the situation of the euro in the usual media, but also
on the Internet.

In accordance with my duty, so to speak, I also have to repeat the »Euro prophecy« of another
clairvoyant from 2009 at this point. This clairvoyant is Gabriele Hoffmann, who has been
Germany's best-known fortune teller for years. Ms. Hoffmann is from Berlin and has been
working there as a fortune teller or medium for around 40 years. Her clients included and still
include well-known personalities such as Curd Jürgens, Hildegard Knef, Rudi Carrell,
Klausjürgen Wussow, Udo Lindenberg, Howard Carpendale, Gunter Gabriel and others.217
She herself freely admits that she also advises politicians, but of course does not name any
names .

At the beginning of 2009, shortly after the Lehman Brothers crash, she gave an interview to the Tagesspiegel 218
in which she predicted a kind of euro crash. The Tagesspiegel read: Fortune tellers are booming: what comes after
the crash?
[...] Her clientele includes numerous celebrities [...] as well as politicians and entrepreneurs. [...] Some sit there
regularly, again and again. For around 250 euros, Gabriele Hoffmann then goes into a kind of trance, as she puts
it, and begins to immerse herself »in the stream of destiny« of people. Here, as if in a film, she sees images flash
by. Pictures from the past, the present - and the future of people. What she sees, she tells her clients -
unembellished, without omissions or digressions. In her trance, Gabriele Hoffmann cannot separate things that
people want to hear and things that they would rather not experience.
Lately it's more common for people who have been doing very well financially to ring her bell out of concern for
their money. The financial crisis has pulled the rug out from under the feet of a number of entrepreneurs and
managers and bathed their previously rosy future in a gloomy light. [...]
The crisis, she predicts, will be over after about three years [ie 2012 - and thus correctly predicted!] - apparently.
»You will feel safe and think you got away with a black eye«. But then, she warns, the real crash will come. [...]
And then she ponders for a moment and predicts something that - in her opinion - sounds illogical. »There will be
a devaluation of money, and that will be different in the different European countries.« A different monetary value
for one and the same currency, the euro? "Yes". She says she finds this vision just as inexplicable as the
peaceful fall of the Berlin Wall she had in the '70s.

I also interviewed the lady on April 28, 2010, and she said to me on the phone at the time:
My specialty and my gift actually lies in the area of seeing the fates of people sitting across from me. I'm not a
person who can focus on one country and see what's happening. If I say something that has to do with world
219
events, it has always only been in connection with the person sitting in front of me.
Theoretically, this statement could also be a kind of professional self-protection, as practised
in one form or another by many well-known clairvoyants. To put it simply: before it becomes
risky, the clairvoyant or fortune teller acts up unsuspecting. It's been like this for millennia.
Really for thousands of years!

In a preliminary talk, I naturally told Ms. Hoffmann about my Irlmaier biography and my
research on European prophecy. What else could you expect from an author like me?

Ms. Hoffmann, however, would not or could not confirm any of this from her own point of view.
But I don't think she heard it for the first time either. She didn't seem surprised, nor did she
inquire.

Ms. Hoffmann continued:

It happened to me very badly over the years - I think it was between '72 and '78, when I saw three striking things
from various clients:
[First vision:] I saw that between 86 and 89 in Berlin the wall falls. Overnight, without a war, everyone on the street,
somehow surprised and taken by surprise.
[Second vision:] I then saw that after the fall of the Wall we would get different money in Germany, which everyone
in Europe has, except for Switzerland [... and England and Norway ...]. At the time, I also tried to interpret the
images of the sudden fall of the Wall and, as a typical Berliner, I really couldn't have imagined that the Wall would
just fall overnight like that. I even considered and interpreted that maybe the Russians are getting a hold of us in
Berlin and that we will have different money in Europe because then - I don't know - we'll have the ruble. So to see
220
such general pictures and to interpret them correctly is very difficult for me, too, when it comes to world events.

Very interesting. One of the rather rare cases where a seer or a fortune teller admits that she
sometimes has to interpret her visions herself - which is not surprising, because it is often the
case that one really only really understands an event when one has the (non-visible)
background.

I saw that the money that we get, that everyone in Europe has - except Switzerland - is going into a very big crisis
in 2006 to 2008, where we believe we have slid past the abyss. But the actual crash comes around the time of
2013 [compared with the Tagesspiegel "around the beginning of 2012" the euro crisis seems to have been
overcome]. I had pictures from which I draw the conclusion that the federal government will decide in a very short
time on a non-uniform devaluation of the money, "non-uniform" - this means that if the euro in Germany is only
worth 60 cents, then it is Euro in France at 70 cents, in Italy at 30 cents.121

This suggests a scenario in which the respective euro bank deposits in the various European
countries are devalued differently overnight. What follows is clear: days of wrath and fury! The
euro as a uniform means of payment is likely to continue to exist for the time being. And of
course the governments would also have to have a concept with which to keep the anger in
check. How about, for example, the promise that all of this is only temporary?

Then Gabriele Hoffmann talked about a vision she had had decades ago, according to which
Russia would become an immigration country around the year 2030 like the USA in the 19th
century. People - including Germans - would move to Russia "to make their fortune." Ms.
Hoffmann told me that she couldn't imagine that because she thought Russia was too rigid
and too inflexible. I then explained to her that she probably saw a continental European future
in which the Anglo-Saxon powers were no longer able to divide Europe and thereby hold it
down.
In any case, Gabriele Hoffmann's vision of Russia as a country of immigration around 2030
basically coincides with what European prophecy also predicts:
After World War III there was no more England.222 The USA is far, far away and has enough
to do with itself. The dollar as the world's leading currency no longer exists. There are also
predictions of a (probably longer) lasting civil war in the USA (e.g. by Edgar Cayce, see below),
which would also be no wonder if there were 89 firearms for every 100 inhabitants223 and the
people plunged into a great mental crisis because the American dream is finally over.

Mind you: Just like Buchela, Gabriele Hoffmann didn't say a single word about the Third World
War! Not the slightest hint!

But the future around 2030 that Gabriele Hoffmann described - this harmony between Western
and Eastern Europe, this image of blossoming and hope definitely contradicts those
geostrategic interests that have prevailed in Anglo-Saxon countries for a long time.
Geostrategically, it's not about "punishing the Russians" or "reasoning them." In geostrategic
terms, the aim is to prevent, to put it simply, Western European technology and Russian raw
materials from coming together and creating something wonderful that is so powerful that in
the long term no one can harm or dispute this Eurasian-European bloc. Whereby that is of
course only an economic-political perspective and says nothing about a possible spiritual and
cultural fertilisation.

Gabriele Hoffmann's vision of Russia as a future land of hope and immigration also
corresponds to a statement by the well-known American trance medium or "sleeping" prophet
Edgar Cayce (1877-1945), which was recorded in one of the many Cayce trance sessions. A
book first published in the United States in 1971 reads:
Someone asked the sleeping prophet about the future of religion in the US. “It depends on the activities of too many
individuals to predict at this point, for changes are coming, that's for sure - an evolution or revolution in the notions
of religious thought. The basis for this, for the whole world, will possibly come from Russia; not communism, NO!
Rather what is a basic idea, as Christ taught him - his kind of Communism!" 224

It may be that Vladimir Putin is currently only abusing certain spiritual aspirations of the
Russians. The fact is, however, that he presents himself as a defender of traditional Christian
values and positions himself against Western decadence, and this meets with great approval
among many Russians.

Here is another log from a Cayce session:

From Russia comes the hope of the world, not as what is sometimes called communism, as Bolshevism, no. But
freedom, as a freedom in which every single human being will live for his fellow human beings! The principle is
born. It will take years to materialise, but out of this Russia comes the hope of the world again. What is it guided
225
by? From friendship to the nation that has even put the words "In God We Trust" on its current currency.

Social Consequences of a Total Economic Collapse

But back to the topic »Economic situation in Germany before the war«: Even if a euro crash
finds a certain expression in the prophecy texts, I would not dare to say how much time passes
from the euro crash to the outbreak of the war. From my point of view, the source situation is
simply too fuzzy and thin. I myself suspect that it is only a few months. But let's look at more
prophecy texts; first again Alois Irlmaier:
It's a bad time. Hehere [higher] who shot or hiked on the stomp. De politicians have no more morals. Everything is
oise [everything] allowed. The Land will be as godless as ever.
With us [probably Germany, not just Bavaria] it goes under and over ie chaotic. The government falls. It's really
bad. Lying and deceit reigns.
Money comes first. States go bust because they don't have any more money. ... They never pick themselves up...
Then there is total poverty. It then spills from country to country. We are in total poverty. We are not spared. 226

All of this coincides in principle with other prophecies. But I personally have doubts about the
subtleties of the chronology. After all, it is only the memory of the Allgäu witness I interviewed.
Details in the sequence could have gotten mixed up.

Violent attacks on winners of the collapsed system can also be seen in other sources, but that
would probably only be expected in Germany after the Russian attack. In my opinion, the same
should apply to “total poverty”. A longer phase of "total poverty" in Germany before the war
seems improbable to me. After all, the situation in Germany should always be viewed in the
pan-European context. To put it simply: When the Germans go to the barricades, the
barricades in France and Italy are already burning with flames. And the latter would be the
signal for Russia to attack.

Buchela (1983, Rhineland):

Internal unrest in Europe will increase. You will have to deal with people who get their way without regard for the
common good. While these are few, they will lead the large groups. And the big ones will keep quiet out of
cowardice and feel honoured because the little ones call them 'friend'...227

That fits in with the austerity policies in southern Europe. "Internal unrest" could still be limited
to general strikes and mass demonstrations. ... Buchela elsewhere - I had already partially
quoted that:
Thieves and arsonists will rule your life, robbery will be familiar to you and murder will no longer terrify you.228
Because a time will come to you when the bottom will be turned upside down and wealth and fame will be a curse
and endanger life. And the fear of tomorrow will be in all.229

Especially phrases like "the fear of tomorrow will be in everyone" and criminals would "rule
life" give the impression that Buchela saw a long phase of social chaos, a phase that lasted
far longer than is generally expected nowadays, would consider even possible. We think,
"Maybe a few days. Well. But then the police would definitely come, some special units or
even the Bundeswehr."

That is exactly what is really disturbing about this prediction: the subliminally conveyed
impression: neither the police nor the Bundeswehr are coming. Neither tomorrow nor in a
week.

An explanation for these "incomprehensible" conditions would lie in a post-war situation or the
previous war. But Buchela didn't mention it or only hinted at it softly.

We already had a similar-sounding prediction from Alois Irlmaier above:

230
It's a bad time. Hehere [higher] who shot or hiked on the stomp.
Here, too, what is really frightening is not so much the act itself, but that there is complete
lawlessness in public space and every state order seems to have completely collapsed. And
Buchela and Irlmaier - both very good sources - are not the only ones who say so. Another
clairvoyant who predicts something similar is a certain Thaler-Wasserer from Schönau near
Berchtesgaden, not far from Freilassing, where Irlmaier lived, around 1800. The Thaler-
Wasserer says:
When the farmer "cultivates" (ploughs) and he sees a gentleman [wealthy, official] walking, he leaves the plough
and first kills the gentleman with the plough, only then does he drive on again.
Quite a lot of laws are made, but are no longer carried out.
People are only looked at by the hands; those who have fine working hands will all be slain.
Anyone who has anything else will have it taken away.
When all this is over and the people on the market [centre of Berchtesgaden] see a person, they go together, shake
hands and say: "Hello, God, you're still alive too!"231

This kind of greeting would not necessarily mean that hardly anyone survived. It does mean,
however, that many people have died (mainly as a result of the three-day eclipse) so that
anyone you haven't seen in a while makes you wonder if they're still alive. That would be the
case with a death rate estimated at five percent.

Of course, it cannot be true that people with fine hands are all killed. Because nowadays hardly
anyone works really physically hard. Seen in this way, those with the "fine" hands are in the
majority and would band together and defend themselves. Nevertheless, the phase of
unpunished murder referred to here seems to have a visionary core. The frequent murders
appear already above with Irlmaier and resonate with Buchela. The Thaler-Wasserer is said -
at least according to tradition - to have been a good clairvoyant.232

Surprisingly, the East Tyrolean seer Egger Gilge (d. 1735) from Matrei, about 40 kilometres
as the crow flies south of Berchtesgaden, made a prediction that sounded very similar:
The [high, fine?] gentlemen will all be slain, and when it comes to that they will disguise themselves and flee into
the woods and chop wood. But it won't do them any good. One will look no further than the hands; whoever has
clever (fine) hands will just be killed.233

If you believe the three clairvoyants from Freilassing, Schönau and Matrei, something should
happen that would lead to enormous anger among the "normal working" population on the one
hand, but also to a general climate of vigilante justice on the other. Not only would it kill, but
the perpetrators could rest assured for a period of time that they would get away with it.

What events could lead to such a social climate? Clearly, something must have happened that
caused irreparable, existential damage to the general population. On the one hand, this could
be a total destruction of prosperity after a failed euro experiment, but it could also be a war
that a political class that has failed across the board is partly to blame and against which
absolutely no precautions have been taken.

In terms of omens and precautions, the development of general justice or to respect feelings
of injustice. And one should be aware that in the case of war, the personal world of experience
of the individual and their feelings gain power and the influence of whitewashing in the media
very quickly reaches its limits. It would no longer matter how things are reported, but how
things are perceived by the »man on the street«.
Let's go back to the predictions of economic development before the war:
Egger Gilge (1735, Tyrol):
The gifts [probably prizes; or do you mean dues = taxes?] will go up slowly, as if someone were pulling up a grattan
[basket, cart], ever further, ever higher. Then when everything is so expensive that people will say:
Now it has no more simile, so it is as if someone cut off the rope and the ridge quickly jumps down to the ground.
Everything will be worthless. If someone has land, he will still have something, the others will all have nothing. The
borrowed money will all be gone.234

Borrowed money refers to the balances held in life insurance policies, annuities, etc., i.e. the
money that has been entrusted to financial service providers in good faith for them to increase.
This corresponds to the devaluation of the euro overnight for Gabriele Hoffmann.

It would be clear that there are "problems with popular anger" under such a scenario,
especially if years of hard work lie behind the lost savings. Otherwise, life could initially go on
as normal if wages and salaries are adjusted to the general price level. Initially, it would only
be a matter of de facto expropriation of the “wealthier”.

Mühlhiasl (ca. 1820, Bavaria):

Many new laws are made, but never carried out. ... A very severe gentleman will come and skin the poor people.
He won't rule for long either, because once everything has arrived, the big clearing will come.235

Along with Alois Irlmaier, Mühlhiasl is the best-known Bavarian clairvoyant, also known as the
»forest prophet«. He was a shepherd in the Bavarian Forest.

The "great clearing" refers to the war and the natural catastrophe that followed, the three-day
darkness. The lines before it seem to describe the situation after a euro crash: the political
class is being hit by the first massive shock waves, but to quote Vladimir Putin's words: they
are still "jumping around like cockroaches" and trying to save what's going on save is. In times
of need like this, unity governments are formed, government posts are filled, legislative
proposals are rushed through parliament, etc. The "very strict gentleman" may be whoever
wants to, but it is of course obvious to relate him to the "bull neck" of above, who was to rule
Germany immediately before the Russian attack (see page 81).

Sign of Inflation

Inflation in Germany has already been addressed above at Buchela. Buchela predicts inflation
that won't be as high as it was in the 1920s and 1930s, but will still make people poor. The
seer brought the example of a bread roll, and her "bread price prophecy" has since been
fulfilled. Presumably, Buchela had the “little people” in mind when making her inflation
forecast. Of course, wealthier people are far less affected by such inflation.

This leaves a certain grey area for different interpretations of Buchela's inflation prophecy. Do
you mean "objective" inflation, or do you mean that, from the point of view of the little people,
everything will become more expensive? The question also arises with the next source:
Alois Irlmaier (1959, Bavaria, published in 1992):
Girl, you're living the great upheaval that's to come. First comes prosperity like never before.
Then follows an apostasy like never before.
Then an unprecedented corruption of morals.
Then a large number of strangers come into the country [see page 214] There is high inflation.
Money loses more and more value.
The revolution follows soon after.
Then the Russians invaded the West overnight.236

Inflation? What inflation?

According to the official inflation rates in Germany and the EU, we have been far from critical
inflation for years. The following statistics are from the Federal Statistical Office.

Fig. 32: Inflation in Germany; Source: Federal Statistical Office

According to official figures, we have had low inflation for a number of years - since 1995
mostly between 1 and 2.5 percent. In blatant contradiction to these reassuring numbers, there
has been a widespread feeling among German citizens for more than ten years that we do
have high inflation, keyword »Teuro«. And even in flagship mass media such as Focus and
Die Welt there were repeated reports of high inflation in Germany up to around mid-2014, in
which the official figures were described as incorrect and citizens were confirmed in their
feeling that the state had been years in terms of inflation trying to pretend an X for a U.

Focus-MONEY Online wrote on June 14, 2014:

The Great Inflation Lie: Why Your Money Is Worth Much Less Than You Think
The official inflation rate is not correct at all. Why politics, banks and science throw smoke candles - and how
investors protect themselves: Focus-Online explains the three biggest misconceptions about currency devaluation.
[...] Huge price increases that do not appear in any official statistics. Central banks that print fresh money without
end. Governments that keep incurring new debts. And everyone says: Inflation is not a problem, say central
237
bankers, politicians, banks and scientists almost in unison.
The fact that the title of the article already contains a big lie about inflation speaks volumes. It
doesn't get any clearer. The well-known economics professor Max Otte then writes in the
Focus article that he estimates the real inflation rate affecting the citizen to be between four
and five percent. The newspaper Die Welt, also a German flagship media, carried an article
on December 29, 2013 with the headline:
The real inflation is in the shopping cart
Because of low inflation. In 2013, Germans had to dig much deeper into their pockets for groceries. If this continues,
dairy products and potatoes will gradually become luxury goods.238

From the choice of words alone, one senses how the media wants to address the widespread
feeling of being lied to in the reader.
The divergence between public perception and the official inflation figures naturally started
back in 2002 with the introduction of the euro.
When the complaints about the "Teuro" just wouldn't stop, an attempt was made to get this
discrepancy under control in such a way that the state and politics were freed from the
suspicion of fraud. The magic word with which this was to succeed was »perceived inflation«.
In 2005, the Federal Statistical Office prepared a study on the subjective inflation of the
individual citizen. An index for perceived inflation was developed together with the Swiss
statistics professor Brachinger. In an interview with Stern magazine in early 2006, Professor
Brachinger explained the discrepancy between official and "perceived" inflation by saying that
everyday goods such as bread rolls, newspapers, etc. would become more expensive, while
more durable goods that are bought less often, such as Computers would become cheaper or
more moderately expensive. Professor Brachinger went on to say that the public perceives
price increases more intensely than price decreases, and stated:
In 2005, perceived inflation averaged over 8 percent, and in December it was 9.6 percent - many times higher than
239
the official consumer price index.

Ultimately, what lies behind all the talk of "perceived" inflation is a calculation model (the so-
called "shopping basket") with which the official inflation rate is calculated in such a way that
price increases in certain product ranges are valued proportionately weaker. In principle,
inflation is simply calculated out of the statistics.

For years, even the leading mass media have repeatedly pointed out that the state is using
the so-called "shopping basket" to deceive citizens. If you transfer the statements of Professor
Otte and Professor Brachinger to the above statistics, the following picture emerges:
 Fig. 33: Inflation in Germany; Source: Federal Statistical Office

From a psychological point of view, we have an interesting situation here: average earners
have been feeling their purchasing power dwindling for years, the newspapers (print and
online) have repeatedly confirmed their perception, telling the citizen that official bodies have
been lying to and deceiving them for years , but the citizen is not in a position to translate this
fraud, felt for years and repeatedly confirmed in black and white by the leading mass media,
into a practical consequence. The population reacts as if they lived in a dictatorship, which is
expected to lie to you anyway and where it's better to keep your mouth shut. Motto: "It's no
good anyway."

Of course, with all this, one wonders what the government actually has from a hypocritical low
inflation rate? Is it really just a matter of keeping wage demands based on the official inflation
rate low? Probably not. Interest on savings, life insurance, etc. is also based on the official
inflation rate. If this is set too low, you get less interest, so you lose money. This means that
the manipulation of inflation figures is ultimately about concealing the gradual impoverishment
of large sections of the population, as is becoming increasingly evident elsewhere: for example
in the ever-widening gap between rich and poor, the increasing poverty in old age, the Rush
to feed the poor, etc.

Next question: Does the government really have reason to hope that this growing
impoverishment will go unnoticed as it spreads?
Some politicians may now think so short-sightedly that they no longer see any problem in the
creeping impoverishment - motto: "After all, why are there non-voters?" There are ways into a
social crisis from which we can only get out again if we either get decent economic growth
again or democracy is actually replaced by a dictatorship. This dictatorship could then
suppress or neutralise by distraction the dissatisfaction of the citizens, which in practice often
amounts to the artificial creation of external and internal enemies.

At some point there comes the sad moment when the unattainable »prosperity for all« has to
be replaced by an »enemy for all«. This external and/or internal enemy would then ensure a
certain social unity. Seen in this light, Vladimir Putin comes at just the right time.

In the long term, growth or dictatorship are the two alternatives if the state continues to exist.
Civil war chaos or third world war are the two alternatives in the event of failure. If one believes
the European prophecy, the overall sequence would be: dictatorship - civil war - war - growth,
whereby I hope and believe that the phase dictatorship - civil war lasts only a few months.

If a state risks "certain ambiguities" about real inflation almost systematically undermining the
confidence of its citizens in that state, and if this goes on for many years, then there must be
a strategic intention behind it. This is no coincidence. You don't do that for fun. And that's no
silly mishap either. That's on purpose. Tricks are used to avoid even greater trouble. It's the
good old white lie. And the really big trouble would come when people realise that they are
actually a lot poorer than they think, when someone "chops off the rope" and "the borrowed
money is all gone." Just wondering who to blame for that?

As far as the further development of inflation is concerned, it cannot really be reliably forecast
based on the sources I am aware of. Based on Buchela, we would have already reached the
predicted inflation. Alois Irlmaier sounds more like inflation will pick up significantly.

Currently (January 2015), however, the media is saying that there is no threat of inflation at
all, but quite the opposite: deflation. I'll come back to this important point in a few paragraphs.

Otherwise, in terms of the prophesied signs and precautions, only the further course of inflation
up to the euro crash would actually be of interest. From then on it would basically be clear how
to proceed. A euro crash, whether in the form described by Gabriele Hoffmann or any other,
would be the total moral bankruptcy of Europe's political elites. The people of Europe would
lose their faith in their elite.

It is not without reason that the great master of mass psychology, Gustave Le Bon, states right
at the beginning of his standard work Psychology of the Masses that major social changes are
triggered by changes in people's beliefs. Le Bon is required reading for any able-bodied
politician, and thanks to Le Bon, the more qualified politicians will all know that the end of the
euro crash will very quickly be reached.

With the euro crash, people would lose their faith and the "power of the old gods" would be
broken. This does not mean that »the temple« will collapse at the same time, but a death of
the euro, or a death struggle of money that is now beginning (see Buchela and Berta
Zängeler), would mean that more and more people would disappear more and more financially
mean resources they would need in order to prepare for the war and all that is to come after
it. That would mean: The euro crash would be one of the most important dates on their
calendar of practical disaster preparedness.

Unfortunately, the sources I know do not allow any statements like this: The euro will only
collapse when we have official (!) inflation of ten percent. But there are indications that the
likelihood of inflation now picking up speed is increasing significantly.

The Last Shot

In terms of financial policy, January 22, 2015 was a historic date for Europe. On this day, the
European Central Bank (ECB) decided on the really big money printing orgy and the expanded
purchase of government bonds from the euro area. It was decided to buy up government
bonds from European countries for 1.14 trillion euros between March 2015 and September
2016.

Whatever had been done in previous years to save the euro and boost the economy in the
euro area, the patient still hadn't recovered. Yes, there was a risk of the euro crisis returning
or a dangerous new wave of illness. The European economic engine was still sputtering at the
beginning of 2015 and deflation was now feared. The ECB and others feared a situation in
which prices would fall and consumers would be reluctant to buy because they speculated
that prices would fall further. As a result, production would collapse (further) and
unemployment would continue to rise - a downward spiral. So argued advocates of the big
injection of money. Critics denied the risk of deflation.

The decision to print big money was described in the mass media as the ECB's last resort in
the fight for the patient euro. The German Wirtschaftswoche wrote of the "last shot" that ECB
President Mario Draghi could still fire. Elsewhere it was "last cartridge" and after that the ECB
was "absolutely powerless".240
All of the newly printed money is ultimately intended to flow into the economy, which invests it
in production. But that is exactly what the previous cash injections have not been able to
achieve. Demand from consumers hasn't increased, so industry hasn't invested in production
either.
Whether the ECB's plan will succeed is highly controversial among economists. The same
applies to unintended side effects, above all, of course, inflation. On the one hand, one of the
most basic rules of economics is that an expansion of the money supply inevitably leads to
inflation. On the other hand, it is pointed out that there is still no significant inflation in the USA
and Great Britain, although the money printing machine has been running at full speed there
for some time. Also, one has to admit, the US and UK economies have recovered somewhat
thanks to the cash injections.

In addition to inflation within the euro area, the next risk would then be a devaluation of the
euro against other currencies or a loss of confidence in the euro, which in turn could attract
currency speculators who, for their part, try to make the euro ready for attack.
To put it simply, the situation with the euro at the beginning of 2015 can be summarised as
follows: people in Europe believe that something must be done now, but nobody knows
whether they are really doing the right thing.

It is interesting that most of the critics of this money printing experiment come from Germany,
which again relates to Buchela's warning that the German economy would be ruined by money
from abroad. Der Spiegel wrote on January 22, 2015:
In Germany in particular, politicians are resisting the planned ECB program to buy up government bonds. [...] A
possible bond purchase program has many opponents. Most of them are based in Germany.241

The world wrote the day before:

The Germans are still enduring the cold currency crisis.
In all likelihood, the ECB is heralding a new chapter in the fight against the debt crisis. The monetary union will
therefore not perish. But the days of stable money are over.
[...] the President of the European Central Bank, Mario Draghi, is determined to follow up on his words from the
summer of 2012 that he will do everything necessary to preserve the euro with deeds. The financial players firmly
expect that the ECB will now start its highly controversial program to buy up government bonds - despite all German
concerns.242

When the brand new decision of the ECB was commented on in the evening news on January
22, 2015, the hewfe program of the German ZDF spoke of "money glut", it was "not a good
day for (German) savers and consumers", it was "It's not clear whether it'll do anything" and
it's "unhealthy."
A few hours later in the ZDF Today Journal it said: "Germany will be mercilessly overruled in
the Governing Council." “Germany doesn't have a real one on the Governing Council Partner"
and it was a "very unpleasant day for the euro". On the same evening, the Bavarian news
radio B5-Aktuell reported that the ECB's decision had "generally met with criticism in politics
and business" and that there had been "massive allegations from the camp of the Union
parties (CDU/CSU)".

Fig. 34: Welt-Online, January 20, 2015

In short: in the hours after the ECB's decision, when the Germans feared that their wallets
would be affected, the last remnants of national unity flickered in Germany, and politicians and
the mass media complained - albeit subduedly - about other European countries. The
background and basis of the »anti-German« ECB decision and the anger of the Germans was,
of course, that Germany, despite its size and economic power, has far too little voting weight
in the Governing Council and can easily be overruled by all those countries that are in are in
need of money.

The fact that years ago German politicians even allowed Germany to have far too little voting
weight in the Governing Council and that Germany can now be excluded from the Governing
Council like a Christmas goose was hardly mentioned in our media on January 22, 2015 word
lost.

Of course we have to wait and see further developments here as well. But it is amazing how
closely the real events develop along the course prophesied by Buchela in particular. Thanks
to its dear neighbours, Germany is drifting towards the abyss, but it is also the political class
in Germany itself that made all this possible in the first place and would of course have to pay
its price if it all ended badly one day.

Another visionary source, this time from 1973 and from the USA, on the further possible
development of the euro against the background of new excessive cash injections: David
Wilkerson (1931-2011), an evangelist from New York. David Wilkerson was a founder of Times
Square Church in New York City and the author of several books. In 1958 he founded Teen
Challenge, a Christian rehabilitation ministry for young drug addicts, alcoholics, gang
members and prostitutes. Teen Challenge today has more than 400 facilities in many countries
around the world.243
In the 1970s, David Wilkerson had some visions that were published in Germany at the time.
David Wilkerson (1973, USA):
A global economic mess is imminent. [again a wrong timing prognosis, apparently a kind of occupational disease]
I probably saw this most clearly in my vision. [...] Not only the American dollar will get into very big trouble, but also
all other currencies of the world. I see Europe [first] being gripped by total economic disarray, which is then
gripped by Japan, the US, Canada, and shortly thereafter all the other nations of the world. It's not really an
economic crisis I see coming - but a recession of such proportions that it is affecting the standard of living of almost
every salaried person in the world.244 [...]
Although economic action in Europe will trigger the coming recession, most nations blame the US for what is
happening. [...'] Politicians and business leaders in Europe and Japan will blame Washington and the American
banks.245

Actually, there is no need to comment on that. In fact, the global financial crisis was triggered
by the gigantic real estate scams in the USA. This is common knowledge. And as far as the
major currency areas are concerned, the euro area is currently the most insecure and
vulnerable. And if the euro topples, this will trigger a domino effect in the world financial
system, which will also sweep other ailing currencies (dollar, pound, yen) with it.

To the euro or Currency issue two more sources from Europe:

I had already mentioned this prediction from the Amsterdam Embassy (1947): The woman says: »The world will
be torn in two, as it were.« [...] and [I] see America and Europe lying side by side. Then I see it written: "Economic
246
war, boycott, currency crises, catastrophes."
2014: Start of economic sanctions against Russia. 2015: Mario Draghi's final shot. Is this the
beginning of the really big euro crisis?

The following statements were handed down from Berta Zängeler (Switzerland/St. Gallen,
around 1950, appeared on the Internet in 2008):
Switzerland - collapse of the monetary system. People want to withdraw their money from the banks. The banks
then have to close for a short time, literally: "The money is broken." Afterwards you can pay 100 sFr. buy the
same amount as before with 5 sFr. Everyone will then have the same amount of money in the bank.

* In the abridged part, David Wilkerson says that France will be one of the most anti-American nations -
which of course isn't true given the real issue of the subprime financial crisis, but it doesn't really matter
that much either.

The last sentence could also mean that you only get a fraction of your money in the bank.
Overall, this is similar to the euro crash scenario for Gabriele Hoffmann and Egger Gilge.
Berta Zängeler continues:
The financial collapse triggers a wave of suicides among the rich. As a result, many houses are empty, but the
poor do not want to go inside. Civil unrest, literally: "We're going to have a mess."247

According to this prediction, some time would pass after the collapse of the currency system
before the war. After all, it takes a while for vacant houses to dominate the cityscape.

Berta Zängeler's predictions first appeared on a Catholic website248 on the Internet in 2008
and contained hardly any information that could be used to research the background in
detail.249 After examining the content, I think it is likely that the source is genuine.

Taxes

Several sources predict tax increases for the period before the outbreak of war. I already
mentioned Mühlhiasl (ca. 1820, Bavaria) above. In memory of:
The high lords make taxes that no one will pay anymore. Many new laws are made, but never carried out. [...] A
very severe gentleman will come and skin the poor people. He won't rule for long either, because when all this has
250
happened, then the great clearing up [war and three days of darkness] will come.

Alois Irlmaier made a prediction that sounded very similar. This statement was sent to the
Freiburg Institute for Border Areas of Psychology and Mental Health in 1976. It says:
Before the third war, taxes no one can pay.251

Some people may already find the tax burden so oppressive today. If Irlmaier's statement
really means the broad majority of the population, one can conclude that the economic
situation is already so catastrophic that it doesn't matter if the government continues to stifle
it with high taxes.

In principle, the excessive taxes mean that the German government has made a fundamental
change in strategy: now it is all about preventing a civil war. That's why you fleece anyone
who still has something to lose and who you don't think would dare to riot. You collect the
remaining money and stuff it where the situation is most explosive.

Otherwise, of course, it is noticeable that Irlmaier formulates something similar to Mühlhiasl:

Irlmaier: Taxes that nobody can pay
Mühlhiasl: Taxes that nobody will pay anymore

If you look closely, however, you can see that only the words tax, and pay are identical. In
addition, taxes and payments are so closely linked, logically and linguistically, that I can see
no evidence of any copying. Since Mühlhiasl and Irlmaier come from an intellectually simple
milieu, it is not to be expected that either of them would say "pay taxes" or "pay taxes" instead
of "pay taxes".

In addition to his generally high credibility, what a 75-year-old innkeeper from Traunreut told
me while researching my Irlmaier biography also speaks for the fact that Irlmaier saw the
matter with the taxes independently. Irlmaier is said to have once said to his mother around
1952:
Now come the three robber barons!

The mother is said to have asked: "Yes, who is that ...?" Irlmaier is said to have answered:
The tax office, the banks and the insurance companies!

In addition, Alois Irlmaier is said to have solved a theft in the witness's family, a "criminal
service" that was surprisingly often used by this clairvoyant. When I suggested a video
interview, the innkeeper declined because the thief's relatives still live locally and his best
friends are bankers and insurance salesmen.

Here are two other sources, according to which practically all of Europe would find itself in a
similar situation and there would also be tax increases elsewhere, as has actually been the
case in a number of euro countries since the outbreak of the euro crisis, with VAT in particular
being increased.

Josef Naar (1690-1763, Czech Republic):

252
There will be so many different taxes that the authorities will not know what to call them.

Sibylle Michaida (1868, Czech Republic):

The 8th sign [of 12] will be when a change takes place in money and will last for a long time, introducing various
great, outrageous and intolerable duties and taxes.253

The Czech Republic may not have the euro, but of course it could not decouple itself from its
trading partners Germany, Austria, etc. as far as economic development is concerned.
 When will the euro crash?

That is the 100,000 euro question that many readers will ask themselves. So far, however, no
corresponding date or a specific number of months before the outbreak of war can be derived
from European or "old" prophecy. From my point of view, there is simply too little data at the
moment, i.e. forecasts that are not accurate enough.

In principle, of course, it would be clear that the euro would have to collapse in view of the
unrest in Europe. At least a few months would have to elapse between the crash and the
outbreak of war. From the outbreak of war towards the end of July, one would arrive at a euro
crash at the latest around the end of April. However, it is also conceivable that the euro would
collapse in the pre-war year or that account balances would actually be expropriated even
then.

David Wilkerson describes a situation in which Europe "succeeds" in infecting the United
States with the virus of acute economic decline before the outbreak of war. But would that be
three, six or more months?...

Mühlhiasl mentions a "very strict gentleman" who "skins the people off". At the same time,
extremely high taxes are to be introduced. That could be interpreted in such a way that as a
result of the euro crash in Germany there will be a government reshuffle, in the following weeks
heaps of new laws will be passed - maybe they are already slumbering in a drawer? - and
then a few more months pass before the average citizen finally understands the full extent of
the catastrophe first-hand. In this situation, the government would certainly try to "defuse" the
situation by not dishing out all the atrocities to the citizen at once. This would be done as
gradually as possible.

When Berta Zängeler talks about the fact that many houses in Switzerland are empty as a
result of the financial collapse, but nobody wants to move in, a few months should actually go
by here as well. After all, these properties would first have to be vacated and then stand vacant
for a certain period of time, so that these vacancies become an issue in the public eye. Here
one could probably estimate at least three to four months, if not significantly more, for the
period between crash and war.

Katharina aus dem Ötztal (1951, Austria) says:

It starts slowly. [...] But then comes a hard time. Only the elderly and women are available at home and for field
work. The need is getting bigger and bigger. And you say to each other: »It can no longer work, it will never work«,
and it still goes on. It's going down a lot longer than people think at first. "Then suddenly it breaks." [Bekh suspects
"revolution here"] The people are in the fields, it's late summer, the corn is already ripe...254

If one equates the beginning of the misery with the financial crash, a phase of increasing
misery lasting several months would become apparent here, too, until the war broke out in the
summer. But it is difficult to say whether, according to this source, the financial crash did not
occur until the war year or the year before (see also page 248). "It's going down a lot longer
than people think at first." That sounds like it's a lot longer than just three to four months until
the outbreak of war.
When Alois Irlmaier said in connection with the euro crisis that "total poverty" also existed in
Germany and Bavaria (see page 198), that also sounded more like a much longer phase
between the financial crash and war. In the case of Irlmaier, it is also conceivable that he was
referring to the situation from the beginning of the war.

As you can see, given the currently thin source base, all this is a rather vague matter. However,
with regard to the fact that, according to the sources, the outbreak of war is certain at the time
of the grain harvest or at the end of July/beginning of August, one can at least say that the
financial crash would probably have to take place by March/April/May of the war year at the
latest.

Refugees in Germany

The chapter that now follows is essentially based on a prediction by Alois Irlmaier already
mentioned above, which is also flanked by three other German-language prophecies. In
addition, the prophesied fire in Paris also fits into the following picture.

According to Alois Irlmaier's statement (see below), an influx of a "large number of strangers"
to Bavaria and Germany would be one of the last signs immediately before the start of the
worsening economic crisis and rising inflation in Germany.

The immigration of many foreigners immediately before the beginning of a serious economic
crisis suggests that the integration of these foreigners who arrived last is no longer working
and that this is causing considerable problems in the context of the general escalation. This is
exactly what becomes the subject of the other three sources.

Since the seismographs of political correctness in this country are becoming more and more
sensitive and efficient, the following statement must be made in advance: mass immigration
is part of German history and has worked extremely well several times. I want to explain this
briefly with two examples: the Huguenots in the 17th century and the so-called Ruhr Poles in
the 19th century: The Huguenots were French Protestants who lived in the 16th and 17th
centuries. Centuries were suppressed in France (massacre in Paris in August 1572) and found
refuge in Germany, among other places.

50,000 Huguenots fled to the eastern side of the Rhine. 20,000 of them came to
Brandenburg/Prussia and enjoyed special privileges there. Their integration worked so well
there that the Prussian military set up two Huguenot regiments just three years after their
arrival. The influx of Huguenots into Prussia was definitely a win-win situation. The Huguenots
rejoiced in religious tolerance, and the Germans rejoiced in the economic and cultural revival.
Many of the Huguenots were educated and well qualified.

The Ruhr Poles came to the Ruhr area at the end of the 19th century in the course of
industrialization and booming mining. They were Poles and Polish-speaking Germans from
the East. In 1871 the Ruhr region still had around 500,000 inhabitants, but by 1900 their
number had quadrupled. Half a million of them were of Polish, Upper Silesian or Masurian
origin. The integration of the Ruhr Poles also worked very well, which is all the more
remarkable given that there was a very large number of new citizens within a relatively short
period of time.

In addition to the Huguenots and Ruhr Poles, the so-called guest workers who came to
Germany in the course of the economic miracle in the late 1950s and 1960s should of course
also be mentioned.

We Germans have had really positive experiences with a large number of non-German
immigrants on a number of occasions. Admittedly, this immigration - to stay with the three
examples - mainly took place in times of a noticeable economic upswing for everyone. What
we have practically no experience with today, however, is high immigration or an already
existing high proportion of foreigners in times of a serious crisis. Whether one says foreigner
or chooses another term is ultimately irrelevant. What matters is insufficient integration and
insufficient identification with the German state and the culture in this country. The example of
Paris shows that citizens with a "migrant background" whose fathers and mothers were
already born in the country can also be part of the problem. It is not the colour of the skin or
the formal nationality that matters, but how much one identifies with the state. If this
identification is too weak and a cultural counter-identity arises instead, the state has a problem.

Everyone should be aware that times of crisis show what real integration is, or are we just
fooling ourselves with cheap, politically correct talk into believing that we have "learned
something from history" and that our hearts are now so big that we embrace the whole world.

Is our foreigner-friendliness really substantial? Or is our friendliness to foreigners just fake and
an attempt to fool ourselves into thinking that we are morally better than our grandfathers and
great-grandfathers?

Every materials researcher and architect knows that a system or construction has a load limit
and takes this into account in planning and construction. Of course, the main focus is on
potential vulnerabilities.

In a society, increasing pressure leads to a loss of solidarity: violations of the law, antisocial
behaviour, betrayal and, in the military sphere, desertions or even civil war. No one knows at
what pressure trenches open up in our country and when these trenches can no longer be
filled in. We don't have any public discussion about a possible load limit, and there is no
indication that politics is based on any load limit in this regard. All we have is an open-ended
immigration scale.

A fundamental strategic error of the entire policy on foreigners is the assumption and
assertion, which is not substantiated by anything, especially in view of the euro crisis, that our
economic system will not experience any massive shocks in the foreseeable future, no shocks
that lead to massive social tensions and that every social predetermined breaking point is
permanently on a able to face a tough endurance test. Somewhere, however, this breaking
point will come to light as the pressure continues to increase. In other words, our immigration
policy is based on the disastrously false assumption that this breaking point will never be
tested. And by "testing the breaking point" I mean that neither public appeals nor increased
police presence can lead to the desired result.
To paraphrase a familiar image, it may be wrong to say the boat is full. But you can't pack the
boat so full that you have to rely on a wind force prohibited - let's say force nine (twelve =
hurricane) - for better or for worse. No skipper is stupid enough to pack his boat so full.
Especially not when a long journey through stormy waters is pending. And that's what it looks
like now!

Immigration is a sign of our times. And in some parts of Europe, immigration is now
approaching a tolerance level. In November 2014, British Prime Minister David Cameron, for
example, made Great Britain's remaining in the EU dependent on the immigration of foreigners
from EU territory being restricted. Also in November 2014 there was a referendum in
Switzerland on limiting the immigration of foreigners to Switzerland. However, the
corresponding initiative suffered a defeat. There are similar negative immigration
developments and tendencies in France and Hungary.

The waves of immigration in recent years, especially since the euro crisis and the so-called
Arab Spring, consist largely of refugees from the crisis and are a sign that the world on the
borders of Europe and Germany is getting more and more out of joint.

Let us now take a closer look at the relevant statement by Alois Irlmaier (1955, documented
in 1992):
First comes prosperity like never before.
Then follows an apostasy like never before.
Then an unprecedented corruption of morals.
Then a large number of strangers come into the country.
There is high inflation.
Money loses more and more value.
The revolution follows soon after.
Then the Russians invaded the West overnight.255

Many readers will rightly object that we have had immigration in Germany since the 1950s,
i.e. for around 60 years now. That's right. However, the influx did not take place permanently,
but in waves, essentially in three main waves, of which Irlmaier probably only meant the last.

Fig. 35: Immigration to Germany since 1950, forecast from 2014

Source: Federal Statistical Office
Three waves of immigration can be identified here, which can be assigned to three keywords:
1. economic miracle, 2. collapse of the USSR, 3. increasing international crises (since 2010).
Assuming that Alois Irlmaier's statement was correctly reproduced in the order of events
predicted, it is striking that the seer clearly predicted immigration only after the »apostasy«: If
you look at the numbers leaving the Catholic Church in West Germany, then there was after
the Second World War initially no notable wave of leaving the church. This only happened
between 1968 and 1970, when the number of people leaving the church tripled within three
years (1967: 22,500, 1970: 69,500) and the erosion of the Catholic Church began, which
continues to this day.

However, the first wave of immigration in connection with the "economic miracle" began ten
years before the "apostasy". The “guest workers” were actually a typical sign of this economic
miracle: suddenly there was too much work and the industry was desperately looking for
people. The first wave of "foreigners" came at the same time as prosperity - and not after!

The second indication that Irlmaier meant the wave of immigration from 2010 is, of course,
that he foresaw major inflation and currency devaluation immediately after the (new) wave of
immigration. There was no such inflation in connection with the economic miracle - or were
wages increased there accordingly - nor in connection with reunification.

However, it cannot be completely ruled out that Irlmaier has seen all immigrants from the mid-
1980s until now as one large block. I personally don't think so.

In any case, it should be clear that immigration from 2010 is more a sign of the weakness of
other countries than of Germany's strength. After all, for years in Germany there has been a
growing gap between rich and poor, stagnating incomes, increasing poverty in old age, etc.

Of course, one would first have to wait and see how immigration develops in the near future,
and that is also related to developments in Southern and Eastern Europe, North Africa and
the Middle East. According to a forecast by the economic research institute Kiel Economics at
the end of 2012, a total of 2.2 million people (net) would come to Germany between 2013 and
2017 - 440,000 per year. For comparison: in 2010 there were still 130,000. It should be noted
that these are the net figures, i.e. immigration minus emigration. The numbers only reflect the
foreigners who come and stay, so to speak.

In any case, the German population is now being prepared almost systematically for a
sustained high influx of foreigners. The German Federal Minister of the Interior, Thomas de
Maiziere, said on November 11, 2014 on ARD/ZDF breakfast television: »We will have to be
prepared for high numbers of refugees in the long term.« The man should know!

Now for the three other prophecies on the subject of strangers. First, the so-called song of the
linden tree, which was first published in 1921. This prophecy touches on many points that are
also known from other European prophecies: severe social, sometimes violent tensions in
Germany, brutal riots in Rome with the escape of the Pope, the three-day darkness at the
beginning of the winter of the war year, the mass deaths as a result of the darkness
Subsequent social chaos, even an indirect indication of a pole shift, then in Europe the
emergence of a new leader who restores order and who leads the Pope back to Rome.

Here is the excerpt from the song of the linden tree (~1870, Germany) that is of interest to us:
Yes, from the east comes the strong hero,
bringing order to the confused world,
- White flowers around the heart of the Lord -
The valiant gladly follows his call.
All troublemakers he drives to bars,
The German Reich writes German law,
Colourful stranger, unwelcome guest,
Flee the fields that you have not ploughed!
God's hero, an inseparable bond
You forge around all German land
You lead the exile to Rome,
Great imperial consecration looks like a cathedral.
praise to the twenty-first council,
That shows the peoples their highest goal
And guaranteed by a strict rule of life,
That now rich and poor no longer choke each other.256

The last line is an indirect reference to a previous civil war in Germany. The 21st Council
should mean the 21st Ecumenical Council, but it took place in 1962-1965. At this point it
becomes apparent that the actual prophecy was revised by a writer, because the 20th
Ecumenical Council took place in 1869-1870. This is interpreted by some to mean that the
author Martin Hingerl only learned about the underlying prophecy text after 1870, and
interpreted a statement from the original prophecy to mean that it will refer to the next council.
The Song of the Linden goes on to say:
German name, you suffered badly,
The old honour shines around you again,
Grows around the intertwined double branch,
Many guests are looking for its shade.
Dantes and Cervantes' soft sound
Even the German child is familiar
And on the Tiber as on the Ebro beach
Sings the brown friend from Hermannsland.
When the angelic shepherd of nations
As Antonius becomes a wanderer,
preaches to the stray barefoot,
New spring smiles to the whole world.257

Dante Alighieri was an Italian poet and philosopher (d. 1321), Miguel de Cervantes was a
Spanish writer (d. 1616).

The explicit mention of Germany's friends on the Tiber and Ebro, i.e. Italy and Spain, should
take enough wind out of the sails of all those who want to read xenophobia out of this prophecy
text. Equally clearly foreigner-friendly is the reference to the "guests" who later like to sit in the
"shadow of the German tree" in better times, and of course the openness to other cultures,
which is shown by the fact that German students meet Spanish and Italian writers or at least
go on vacation with their parents to southern Europe.

The latter is an interpretation that cannot be completely ruled out. Incidentally, this "post-
apocalyptic" tourism points to a later new prosperity, which is also predicted in another source,
which speaks of tourists from all over the world coming to southern Germany.258
Of course, based on today's usual patterns of perception, it makes sense to look for the actual
inspiration for this text in German nationalist ideas of the 1920s. This prophecy could be a
falsification in which right-wing ideas are supposed to be foisted. However, a few passages
from the prophecy, which are apparently clairvoyantly inspired, speak against this. For
example, at one point it says about Germany after the First World War: Poor get rich
off money quickly,
But the quick riches turn to ashes.

Poor people who get rich quick either win the lottery or there is hyperinflation!
Ten lines before it says:
Cruel has torn the enemy's hand
One blood, one language bond.

The chronological relationship between the rapid increase in money and the end of the First
World War (November 1918) thus becomes clear.

Fig. 36: Dante Alighieri (1265-1321) poet and philosopher

 Fig. 37: Miguel de Cervantes (1547-1616) writer

Up until October 1920, when the prophecy notes were written, there had never been such
hyperinflation in Germany. This only happened in 1923. The price of an egg was 800
Reichsmarks on June 9, 1923, and 320 billion Reichsmarks on December 2, 1923.

After the currency reform that ended hyperinflation, the useless money was actually burned in
furnaces: the quick riches actually turned to ashes!
There was no historical model for predicting hyperinflation in Germany at the end of 1920, nor
am I aware of any other prophecy from before 1920/21 where such a thing was predicted.
With this we have a very strong indication of a real clairvoyant inspiration for the song of the
linden tree.
The emphasis on a Spain-Germany-Italy axis also seems clairvoyant. That, too, cannot have
been inspired by either Benito Mussolini or General Franco in 1920. Mussolini and his
followers did not come to power in Italy until October 1922. Franco only became head of the
national Spanish government in 1936, which initially only controlled part of Spain.

Atypical and therefore hardly "written off anywhere" in 1920/21 is also a possible indication of
a pole shift clearly after the three-day eclipse. Immediately before the appearance of the
"strong hero" it says:
Because misery's only star of hope - a better day - is endlessly far away. »Saviour, send whom you must send.«
Sounds fearfully from the human breast.
Does the world suddenly take a different course?
Is a new sun star rising? »All is lost!« - here still sounds. "Everything is saved!" - Vienna is already singing.
Yes, from the east comes the strong hero, bringing order to the confused world.259

The impression that the earth is suddenly taking a different course could be caused by the
sky, including the moon and stars, or the sun suddenly turning away because the earth is
rotating in an unnatural way. The seer Edward Korkowski z. B. has repeatedly described this
process in his visions.
 Fig. 38: After the currency reform

Even if the song of the linden tree were nationalist propaganda, it would still not be national
socialist, since the "strong hero" is clearly pro-Vatican. Also, the text as a whole is far too
prophetic, presupposing far too much supernatural belief and knowledge of other 19th and
early 20th century prophecies, to be of any real use as propaganda. The prophecy was already
published in 1921 and 1925260 and only received greater attention from 1949/1950.

Back to the point at hand: The »unwelcome guests« and »colourful strangers« (colourful =
analogy to »from all over the world«, »colourful bunch«) shouldn’t be Spaniards and Italians
and should also differ from those guests that you later see likes to see in the country. The
fleeing foreigners would later hardly spend their holidays in Germany, nor would they want to
host German tourists in their home country.

In the so-called Lehnin’schen Weissagung prophecy (Lehnin near Berlin, allegedly

13th/14th century, documented around 1680) there are also echoes of tensions with ''new
citizens”. And in this prophecy, too, the tensions only become an issue after the great
catastrophe is over. This suggests that the 'problems' with the 'aliens' first appear in the chaos
of war and afterwards.

Mark [Brandenburg] now completely forgets all previous ailments. She happily feeds her family again, the stranger
is friendless.
Chorins and Lehnins buildings [monasteries] rise anew from the earth. Highly honoured, the clergy shine again
261
according to old customs. The wolf never lurks in wait to throw himself into the sheep pen.

Here it can be critically noted that the proportion of foreigners in Brandenburg is currently
extremely small compared to western Germany. On average, it is between one and two
percent.
Similar to the Song of the Linden, Lehnin's prophecy predicts a return of the monarchy and a
religious renaissance in Europe, as do many other European prophecies that look to the future
after the catastrophes.

Berta Zängeler (St. Gallen/Switzerland, around 1950, appeared on the internet in 2008) says:

A famine is the main scourge for this country [Switzerland after the outbreak of the war]. It's no use stocking up,
everything will be robbed [probably just the state stockpiles]. The foreigners who are here in large numbers will go
home because of the famine.
Mobilisation because of refugee flows from Germany. Since the Germans were fleeing in such large numbers and
invading Switzerland, the order to shoot had to be given at the border.262

First of all, the famine in Switzerland: according to official Swiss statistics, Swiss agriculture
covered 64 percent of domestic food requirements in 2011. In the event of war, the import of
the missing 36 percent would come to a standstill for the most part. And when government
and private supplies were depleted, famine would begin. And if today the proportion of the
population with a migration background has lower incomes, lives worse, etc., it is hardly to be
expected that they will then be the winners in the food distribution battle. And experience has
shown that such struggles are inevitable in the event of a famine. This means that there may
be a lot more to the phrase "go home because of the famine" than meets the eye on first
reading.

German Refugees

Now to the Germans who, according to Berta Zängeler, get stuck at the Swiss border fleeing
the attacking Russians: In fact, the seer Franz Kugelbeer (1922), who lived on the east shore
of Lake Constance in Lochau, Austria, also saw that the Pfänder mountain near Lochau
flooded with refugees (from Germany)263. Lochau is just over the German-Austrian border and
all traffic coming from Germany has to pass Lochau on a narrow zone of maybe 100 meters
between Lake Constance and Mount Pfänder, or the Pfänder-Tunnel (E43), but this would be
prevented for security reasons. It's only ten kilometres from Lochau to the Austrian-Swiss
border. It is almost 20 kilometres to St. Gallen, where Berta Zängeler is said to have lived.
Lochau is roughly at the point where refugees from Germany (without a "migration
background"!) would stop as soon as it became clear that they would not be able to get into
Switzerland. Shortly after Lochau you would then take the further route towards Austria (A14)
and not the road 202 towards Switzerland. In addition, the only large open spaces in front of
the city of Bregenz (28,000 inhabitants) are on the Pfänder. In short: War refugees from
Germany are piling up at the Pfänder near Lochau. Later we continue in the direction of Austria
because Switzerland is tight.

Accordingly, Alois Irlmaier also saw that the Allgäu was being flooded by German refugees
(from north of the Danube).264 Then the visionary Katharina from the Ötztal (d. 1951) reports
that even in the Ötztal in Austria, which is around 100 kilometres by road east of Lochau,
plundering hordes suddenly arrived after the outbreak of war265 . That would also fit with Berta
Zängeler's statement: If the Swiss border were tight and if the refugees from Germany had
first crossed the German-Austrian border, they would push further into Austria along the A14
or E60 in an easterly direction. And it is clear: the longer these refugees are on the road, and
the less help they get from locals and fellow EU citizens, the more likely it is that they will be
looted. Accordingly, in this extreme situation, the "tolerance" and "friendliness" between native
Austrians and fleeing Germans would "not really work anymore"!

From a parapsychological point of view, the current immigration and refugee debate in
Germany and elsewhere can only be described as an absurd peak of collective misjudgment
of reality. People - it seems - do not want to wake up from their late-romantic delirium with
humanity. Many of these people would eventually become refugees themselves. At least that
is the European prophecy. They themselves would become refugees because they don't want
to recognize the signs. Immigration advocates as well as anti-immigration alike will - to use
the strained image of the full boat again - have to swim themselves in the foreseeable future,
should the prophecies be fulfilled and should they live in the prophesied war zone. The whole
refugee and immigration discussion can only unfold against the background of a collective
ignoring of the brewing danger of war in the East. The mass-psychologically significant effect
of the media hype about the immigrant issue lies in fooling the local population into believing
that they themselves are still safe!

Many readers will be enraged by these terrifying images. But do you seriously believe that
once the Russians actually advance to the Rhine and Danube, there will be no refugees in
Germany without a migration background?

Just because of the prediction of this war with Russia - and this prediction has been part of
the European Christian culture for centuries - you can count on two fingers that there must be
streams of refugees within Western Europe! A big war means big flows of refugees. And
sudden and surprising great war means even greater flows of refugees!

Basically, it is a unique stroke of luck that the sources Zängeler, Irlmaier, Kugelbeer and
Katharina from the Ötztal come together to form such a coherent overall picture of the refugee
situation in the relatively small German-Austrian-Swiss border area. The coherent overall
picture for this relatively small region urges caution and not to dismiss European prophecies
in bulk. And, of course, the predictions about the refugee situation in this area could in principle
be applied to all areas west of the Rhine and south of the Danube - if, indeed, if one day "the
Russians really did come."

What remains to be said is that we do not know how the coexistence of the native population
and the "newcomers" develops under great long-term stress. And it must be borne in mind
that many of those who are now in favour of welcoming aliens will become aliens themselves
if things really go badly and the West's Russia policy hits the wall full steam ahead.

With all this, I do not want to speak out per se against any immigration. However, I would like
to point out that it would be the primary task of the German government to do everything
possible to prevent its own people from becoming refugees.
 Government Infrastructure Programs

The sign of "government infrastructure programs" is based on a rather meagre source base.
However, I mention the matter because there is some evidence that such events will occur.

After the outbreak of the financial crisis in 2008, attempts were made for a long time to support
the global financial system and the global economy with cash injections. At the same time,
many countries have cut spending as a result of their debt problems. In the fall of 2014, it then
became apparent that none of the measures, particularly in Europe, had succeeded in
stimulating sufficient economic growth.

There is now enough money, but private companies are not investing because the general
public lacks the money. There is a lack of demand. Nevertheless, at the beginning of 2015,
the big injection of money was brought out. On January 21, 2015, Wirtschaftswoche wrote
about ECB President Mario Draghi: "Draghi is aiming for the last shot."

Now (beginning of February), as I write these lines, no one can know whether Mario Draghi
made his last shot well. Nobody knows. Excessive purchases of government bonds do not
have an immediate effect. You have to wait and see. But should Mario Draghi's last shot miss,
that's no reason to despair. Because if neither banks nor private companies nor consumers
can pull the cart out of the mud, there is still someone who can help: the state! The state still
wants to save because it doesn't want to get deeper into the swamp of debt, but now danger
is at hand and time is short.

So the very last possibility would be for the states of Europe and the euro zone to spend
massive amounts of money to boost the economy, which ultimately means a further increase
in debt. Since companies don't invest enough, the state has to do it by investing in education
and infrastructure (bridges, roads, etc.).

In view of the difficult economic situation in Europe, in autumn 2014 the International Monetary
Fund (IMF) and the World Bank for the first time called for state economic aid in Europe that
could (again) be financed with debt. This call for help from the international financial world is
remarkable in that the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank have claimed for years
that the best thing would be for the state to stay completely out of the economy. Now you are
in chaos as a result of the state-uncontrolled economy and suddenly you are calling for the
state again.

Since the credo in the EU since the outbreak of the euro crisis has been »save, save, save«,
it could be that it will be a while before really major infrastructure programs get started in
Europe. But the political resistance, especially in Germany, could break quickly if the global
economy or the economy in Europe continues to cool down.

As early as October 2014, the media reported that the German government was quite isolated
internationally with its insistence on austerity measures (keyword "black zero"). A Spiegel
correspondent wrote on October 13, 2014 that representatives of Germany at the annual
meeting of the IMF and World Bank in 2014 not only met general criticism, but even "emotional
outrage". Germany is under “global pressure”.
So it wouldn't be surprising if government infrastructure programs turned out to be really last-
ditch attempts to prevent the big crash. Behind this is the compelling logic: If banks, companies
and consumers can no longer achieve anything, only the state remains! He then places large
orders, e.g., to the construction companies. And the media could then, like in the GDR and
the Third Reich, report to citizens about the latest major construction sites: »Look here -
something is happening. It's progressing.« Everyone is happy. But the truth is that everyone
is on the brink.

Building bridges, for example, would then be one of the last signs of war. In fact, I know of two
sources that predicted the construction of bridges immediately before the war. That's really
not much of a sign of "government infrastructure programs". And there is insufficient
information about the quality of these two sources. Therefore I mention the following expressly
only with reservations. On the other hand, as of now (early 2015), these bridge constructions
would mean that the main events are at least two years away. Larger bridge constructions are
usually multi-year projects and it usually takes a long time before the groundbreaking
ceremony. There are long-term plan approval procedures, etc. On the other hand, such plan
approval procedures could certainly be accelerated in the event of a serious crisis.

Alois Simon Maas (1805-1846, Austria/Tyrol) was a Tyrolean pastor from Fliess in the Upper
Inn Valley. There are a number of stories about his visionary abilities that were published in
book form in 1899 by a Cistercian monk from Stams (Tyrol). became. However, the following
prediction was recorded much later:
Three attempts will be made to build a railway over the Reschen Pass (from Meran to Landeck) and each time war
will break out at the start of construction and everything will be thwarted. A bridge will be built across the Inn Valley
267
into the Pitz Valley. But it will not be completely finished, then the great world catastrophe begins.

As a result of the ever-increasing freight traffic on the roads and the increasing problems with
trucks crossing the Alps, there have been initiatives for some time to shift corresponding goods
to rail. The most important project in this context is the Brenner Base Tunnel, a railway tunnel
that is currently scheduled to be completed in 2025. The Pitztal route would run about 50
kilometres further west, and from today's perspective, a competing project so close by would
probably be completely nonsensical from an economic point of view. The construction phase
of the Brenner Base Tunnel has been running since 2011. The matter with the Reschenbahn
would actually only be conceivable if the Brenner Base Tunnel project fails (estimated total
costs around eight billion euros).

The above quote from the book by W.J. Bekh is originally from the author Josef Stocker (aka
Anton Angerer). Some time ago, Josef Stocker told me by telephone that he had spoken to
the pastor Asper Herbert from Grins near Landeck, who told him about the matter and who
also showed him the remains of the old construction work (e.g. ramp embankments).
Wikipedia268 information can be found on the Internet, according to which construction was
actually carried out on this route during the First and Second World Wars, but only AFTER the
war began. I in turn communicated this to Josef Stocker, who replied that he had not noticed
this subtlety at the time.

Work was actually done on the Reschenbahn during the past world wars, and traces of it can
still be seen today. In the First World War, construction began on April 1, 1918, in the Second
World War in December 1944. The construction was interrupted as a result of the looming war
defeat. However, this deviation was still within the "usual scope for interpretation", especially
since the tradition is somewhat vague.
The second source on the subject of bridge building as an omen is a certain Bernhard
Rembold, also known as Spielbähn (a minstrel with a violin). Supposedly born in 1689, he is
said to have been a messenger in the Benedictine Abbey of Siegburg (on the eastern side of
the Rhine, directly opposite the city of Bonn). The year of his death is given as 1783. Bernhard
Rembold is credited with a prophecy first printed in 1846.269
In it he predicts the construction of a bridge over the Rhine not far from Cologne, which is to
be completed on the very day the war breaks out.
However, the credibility of this prophecy is not undisputed. So in 1950 a certain Dr. Theodor
Anton Henseler concluded that it was a forgery, a view I do not share. Because if you start
from the 1846 printing of the prophecy, the following prediction points to real visionary abilities:
They will mock God because they think they are omnipotent. So much for the chariots that run through the whole
world without being pulled by living creatures.

There were no passenger cars in 1846. The Benz patent motor car number 1, for example,
did not exist until 1886!
This statement also comes from Rembold:
People will imitate birds and want to fly in the air.

The sequence that interests us is:

A small nation will arise and bring war to the land.
But if you are at Mondorf [approx. six km from Siegburg] will build a bridge over the Rhine. Then it will be advisable
to go over to the other [certainly western] bank with the first ones. [...]
The city of Cologne will then see a terrible battle. Many foreign people are murdered here, and men and women
fight for their faith.270
First things first: There is currently no bridge directly near Mondorf. But practically all Rhine
bridges in the area are in need of renovation. A bridge around eight kilometres north of
Mondorf at the Langeler Bogen is currently under discussion, but the Langeler Bogen is a
nature reserve. SPD and CDU are still arguing whether the bridge is really needed.271
All in all, Bernhard Rembold is clear that he is focusing on the scenario of the third World War,
but the room for interpretation is quite large in places.
So it could not be completely ruled out that instead of being a large bridge made of concrete
and steel, it was a Bundeswehr pioneer bridge. It could be that the Bundeswehr builds
temporary bridges over the Rhine on the morning of the first day of the war because the
existing Rhine bridges cannot cope with the enormous masses of refugees who want to cross
the Rhine to the west.
On the other hand, military pioneer bridges (pontoon bridges) are quickly erected makeshift
bridges, material-saving constructions just above the water level, which make the usual boat
and ship traffic on the respective river impossible. One could actually have expected Bernhard
Rembold to recognize and comment on this unusual type of bridge.
The concise text of the prophecy, in my view, allows for both interpretations. In purely practical
terms, however, I see no problem in this lack of clarity.

* in the original »when«

The sources known to me are uncertain in the case of the »state infrastructure programs«.
But just in case, these would be clear signs. On the other hand, I can only urgently warn
against taking the non-construction of bridges near Mondorf and at the Reschenpass as a
basis for decision-making and believing that this is a sure sign that "there is no danger yet".
Instead, one should pay attention to the development of the "major" signs.

So much for signs in Germany. Now we come to Italy.

Italy — Red Flags in the Vatican

The predictions of the civil war in Italy are often linked to predictions of bloody riots in Rome
and the Vatican and a related escape by the Pope. The escape of the pope would be one of
the last signs of the outbreak of war. An attack by Russia could only be expected hours or
days later.

The riots in Rome would be part of nationwide unrest in Italy. Just like in Germany and France,
the domestic political situation in Italy should come to a head dramatically in the summer of
year X.

Veronica Lueken (ca. 1970, USA):

I will give you a sign of warning when the time comes; when you see that there is a revolution going on in Rome -
when you see that the Holy Father is fleeing, taking refuge in another country, you know that the time has come.272

Two pieces of information would thus be disseminated via the media. First: The Pope has fled
the Vatican. Secondly, he has meanwhile crossed the border into a neighbouring country.
There is no way the Vatican will announce that the Pope has fled while he is still somewhere
in Italy.

As a reminder: Veronica Lueken also predicts for the same time:

Your world is screaming: peace, peace where there is no peace. You associate with devils; an atheist's word is not
273
binding, an atheist's promises are not true. You fall for the plan like sheep for slaughter.

By the time the Pope fled, the world would be simmering: the new Middle East war would have
just broken out, and possibly the Turkish-Greek conflict as well. In Europe there would be
unrest everywhere, etc.

Padre Pió (1966, Italy):

With these [Italian] governments everything will be ruined. Italy too will experience a communist fright. [...] The red
flag in the Vatican. [...] But that will pass. They [the communists] will take it [to power] by surprise [...] without a
blow of the sword [...] we will see them in power overnight.274

»Without a Stroke« is something other than a revolution. However, it would hardly come as a
surprise if uprisings and fighting broke out in other parts of the country shortly after the
communists took power overnight, for example because the political right began to rebel and
the communist government took violent action against it. Either way - an important sign would
be the domestic political development in Italy with a focus on the extreme left.
Padre Pio is probably the most famous saint in Italy today. He bore stigmata (the bleeding
wounds of Christ on his hands and feet). In addition to second sight, Padre Pio is said to have
had other supernatural abilities. Even Bayerischer Rundfunk once reported that it had the
ability to bilocate, i. H. Padre Pio could appear in different places at the same time, according
to testimonies.

Fig. 39: Father Pio

All in all, Padre Pio may have had visionary abilities similar to those of Alois Irlmaier. However,
the Catholic Church was not exactly helpful in getting transcripts of his visions out to the public.

Italy is one of those large EU countries that are suffering particularly badly from the euro crisis.
In 2011, as a result of the austerity policy, there were a number of mass demonstrations and
even two general strikes in September and December. Italy has been in a permanent
recession since 2008, and from 2008 to 2014 the Italian economy shrank by an average of
1.2 percent annually.

So far, none of the governments in Rome has been able to reverse the trend. Average
unemployment in October 2014 was 13 percent, and youth unemployment was 43 percent.
This has been the situation in Italy for years, and it is clear that with such a protracted crisis,
political experiments are becoming increasingly likely. This is how Adolf Hitler came to power.

Barbara Becher (1961, Germany), a nun from Losheim in Saarland:

In Italy Communism will rise to conquer Rome, the heart of Christianity [...] Mary will save the Pope and Rome from
the savage hordes of enemies. Outside of Rome, however, blood will flow.275
The wild hordes of enemies outside of Rome are likely to be Russian troops coming from
Yugoslavia invading northern Italy and getting stuck just outside Rome. The blood to be spilled
outside of Rome would therefore have to be the blood of regular soldiers. Blood was also
flowing in Rome itself, only this was due to the unrest. So the situation in Rome is similar to
that in Paris.

A vision has been handed down from Pope Pius X in which he saw the Russians in Genoa.
Genoa is located on the northwest coast of Italy. From there it is about 400 km to Rome. The
fact that the Red Army does not quite manage the 400 km to Rome would in principle fit with
the predictions for the course of the war north of the Alps, where the Russian army would also
not achieve the goals set (advance to the Atlantic).

Based on the European prophecy, the following sequence of events can be outlined for the
further development in Italy: The economic situation does not improve, dissatisfaction
increases. The communists or extreme left are gaining power both in parliament and on the
streets. There is a peaceful takeover of government in Rome. This is followed by the actual
violent revolution. In the course of this there are also extreme riots in the Vatican. The Pope
flees Rome. This was immediately followed by Russia's attack on Europe from Scandinavia to
the Balkans.
The bloodbath in the Vatican
This headline may be too sensational for some readers, but it is almost trivialising. In the song
of the linden tree, an absolutely church- and pope-friendly prophecy of 1921, it says literally276:

Rome cuts up the multitude of priests like cattle.

And the song of the linden tree is by no means the only pro-Catholic source that describes the
events there so drastically.

If there are only a handful of core themes in European prophecy, then the fate of the Catholic
Church is one of them. One of the reasons for this is that a large part of the corresponding
visions and prophecies came from Christian clergymen who, logically, had the fate of the
church very close to their hearts. In addition - not only from a Christian point of view - the
accumulation of economic chaos, civil war, war and natural disasters is perceived as part of
the end times, in which there is not only a material fight on earth but also a spiritual fight on
an invisible level. And of course the Catholic Church and the Pope would have to be at the
forefront of this great struggle between good and evil. Especially in such a time, the church
should show what it stands for. She would have to take a stand for everyone to see. If she
ducked away at such a time, it would be the end of her life. She would later be accused of
treason, and rightly so. In the middle of the storm is the captain's place on the bridge. And the
fate of the ship is also the fate of the captain.

When the pope is often the focus of prophecies about the fate of the Catholic Church, this
essentially has nothing to do with sensationalism or sensationalism, but follows a clear logic.
As everyone knows, Christianity in Western Europe is currently in decline, both in terms of the
number of believers and clergy, and the public image of the Church in general. This decline of
the Catholic Church is embedded in a general decline in social values or a decline in traditional
values, be it family, fatherland, loyalty, honesty, etc.
Since the predictions about the fate of the church often come from church sources themselves,
e.g. From a parapsychological point of view, for example, nuns and monks, the question
naturally also arises as to whether and to what extent such visions stem from internal church
blindness or whether visions of the fate of the church were overlaid by images and clichés
from the Bible.
Another aspect of prophecies about the fate of the Church is of course that the Catholic Church
has always had a hand in the publication of such prophecies - a not insignificant aspect, at
least if you follow a certain apocalyptic logic, according to which destructive spiritual Forces
even penetrate to the heart of the church. Just as a US citizen would not want to hear that the
United States started World War III, any more than a good Catholic would want to hear that
Satan himself has made it to or near the Holy See.
The amazing thing is that there are quite a few Catholic sources predicting an internal decline
of the Church. A large part of the message from La Salette (1846, southern France), which
goes back to a Church-recognized Marian apparition, is a veritable inflammatory speech
against the internal decay of the Catholic Church, in which absolutely no mince is spoken.
Thus, in this very well-known prophecy text, the Catholic priests are referred to as "unclean
sewers" (!) who invoke the "vengeance" of heaven!277
That means: There are already explanations in Catholic prophecies of the 19th century for
an almost raging rage against the Catholic clergy at the time of the Russian attack!
The Pope's Escape
Veronica Lueken (ca. 1970, USA):
...when you see that there is a revolution going on in Rome - when you see that the Holy Father is fleeing, taking
refuge in another country, you know that the time has come.278

Would northern Italy already be in Russian hands at this point? Can the pope still make it by
land or does he have to flee by sea?

Brother Adam (1949, Germany):

The Holy Father must flee. He must flee quickly to avoid the bloodbath that cardinals and bishops fall victim to.279

At first glance, one might mistake »Bloodbath« for a literary embellishment, but, as stated at
the outset, a veritable slaughter of Roman clerics is also predicted by other sources.

Song of the Linden (1921, Germany):

Rome cuts through the horde of priests like cattle. Don't spare the old man with the silver hair, The highest must
flee over corpses And pursued from place to place. Great imperial consecration looks at a thorn." 280

A very similar sequence of events in connection with the fate of the Pope can be found in the
predictions of the already mentioned Austrian farmer Franz Kugelbeer from Lochau, whose
visions were recorded in 1922 by the Benedictine Father Ellerhorst, but were only published
in 1951. It seems unlikely that Kugelbeer was influenced by the song of the lime tree, since
the booklet with the song of the lime tree was not sold in Bavaria until 1921 and, as far as I
know, was hardly distributed. 281

Franz Kugelbeer (1922, Vorarlberg):

Murder in Rome. 3-4 m high piles of corpses of clerics and citizens. Pope Pius XII. - the seer recognizes him as
such by his facial features - flees with two church princes on side roads to an old carriage and in it via Genoa to
Switzerland. Later he comes to Cologne, where he anoints the new emperor in the cathedral.289

A flight of the pope to Switzerland is also predicted by the pastor from Baden (1923)283. Pope
Pius XII died in 1958, becoming Pope in 1939.

Apparently Fr. Ellerhorst, who recorded Kugelbeer's visions, had notes in which the farmer
described the pope's face in somewhat more detail. However, I have my doubts that the
farmer's details were really so precise that they sufficed for identification. In other words: In
1950/1951 Father Ellerhost probably thought that the prophecies would soon come true (Pius
XII died in 1958) and read a little too much into Franz Kugelbeer's sparse information.

Now what a resemblance between Pius XII. and the current Pope Francis, let everyone judge
for themselves.
 Fig. 40: Pope Pius XII.

Fig. 41: Pope Francis

As I said: In the present case, it is not so much the actual optical differences that matter, but
whether they are so obvious that Franz Kugelbeer could have described them clearly enough.

Back to Franz Kugelbeer's three to four metre high piles of corpses. These correspond to the
statement in the song of the linden tree: ''Rome cuts down the horde of priests like cattle”. It
is thus indicated that no horror stories were invented here, but that things were actually
described on the streets of Rome that were foreseen in a visionary way.
But how should one interpret these mass murders of the priests? Before the violent excesses,
the leading representatives of the Catholic Church and large parts of the clergy would certainly
no longer be able to recognize and feel how great the displeasure and hatred of the Catholic
Church had become in the meantime. Otherwise the security forces in the Vatican would have
been simply increased.

The conceivable degree of extreme emotional desensitisation and deadening of Catholic

clergy to the brewing hatred would, of course, be coupled with the clergy distancing
themselves from themselves, returning to themselves, an evil fate looms if they fail so
catastrophically in themselves.

However, similar processes of decay and degeneration can be found in many religious
organisations and groups. The underlying cause of the condition of the Catholic Church lies,
plain and simple, in human nature. And it is clear that such "cleansing" excesses must occur
every few centuries or millennia. If realities are ignored for too long, at some point they force
themselves back into the realm of perception, so that they can no longer be denied. As the
saying goes: »If you don't want to hear, you have to feel.« This applies on an individual level
as well as on a collective one. However, particularly extreme explosions can occur on the
collective level, since there is of course much more energy on the collective level.

Ultimately, in the case of the Catholic Church, there would be the same surprise catastrophe
of collective ignorance as the sudden euro crash and surprise attack by Russia.

A Media Campaign Against the Pope?

It can be assumed that the Catholic Church would not only fall apart from within, but would
also be attacked by external enemies. Such an attack on the Catholic Church is not so easy
at first, since it can neither be attacked militarily nor is it so easy to bring it to its knees
economically, but a revolution against it could certainly be instigated. On the one hand, this
requires an already dissatisfied masses, but also forces that stir up their dissatisfaction and
take it to the extreme.

The best way to do this is to convince the masses that the pope, bishops, priests, etc. have
done highly immoral things. Corresponding campaigns have basically been running for years,
whereby the allegations are often justified and sometimes also publicly acknowledged by the
church. However, as far as the moral failings of the priests are concerned, a certain deadening
effect has meanwhile set in. Any priests sneaking into their wards' dormitories at night don't
really shock anyone these days. Now the highest church princes should be at the center of
the public accusation. Whether it's right or not doesn't matter.

If wars are started with lies, then you can drive a pope out of the Vatican with lies. It's enough
if the media make claims about it and the masses believe them. And of course the whole thing
would have to be knitted in such a way that the Pope couldn't wriggle out of it so quickly. He
must at least appear as an immediate accomplice and thus as a traitor. In fact, there is a
prediction to this effect from 1914, and it is also a very good source that has been examined
in more detail by several researchers:
Field post letters (Alsace/Bavaria, 1914):
At the end Russia comes and attacks Germany, but is repelled because nature intervenes [three-day darkness].
Then he [the quoted visionary Frenchman] said that the reigning Pope was present at the peace agreement, but
he had to get out of Italy first to flee because he is portrayed as a traitor. He comes to Cologne, where he only finds
a pile of rubble, everything broken.284

In short: An important omen for the final phase before the outbreak of war would be a media
campaign against the Catholic Church, in which the Pope would also be heavily in the line of
fire. The riots against the priests and the flight of the pope would then actually be too late in
the sense of the omens. Because then an attack by Russia could be expected within a few
days, maybe even just hours later.

A Papal Castling Before the Big Showdown?

Another aspect that also needs to be mentioned in connection with the Pope is that we actually
have two Popes at the moment: Pope Francis as the incumbent Pope and Benedict XVI. as
Pope Emeritus. This is how Benedict XVI becomes still addressed as "Holy Father" and "Your
Holiness".

Two popes at the same time? A very unusual situation. However, this situation is not an
absolute historical exception, because in the long history of the popes there has already been
a pope who voluntarily resigned and was then pope emeritus: Pope Celestine V (pope from
July to December 1294).

Side question: Could Benedict XVI. actually become pope again? Absolutely! There is a
precedent for this too, namely Benedict IX. He was twice Pope from 1032 to 1048.

What Benedict XVI What makes it even more interesting from the point of view of prophecy is
the fact that the fleeing pope is supposed to come to Germany or specifically to Cologne,
where the great battle takes place, a battle with apparently similar significance to the Battle of
Stalingrad in World War II: a change of fate .

According to European prophecy, the pope would come to Cologne because he knows that
he is needed there and that things are happening there that will restore faith in the church.

At least from the point of view of European prophecy, the behaviour of the pope would make
perfect sense: firstly, the great battle would take place outside the gates of Cologne, and
secondly, the new European emperor is then to be crowned by the pope in Cologne
Cathedral.285
If you believe Alois Irlmaier, the new Bavarian king will also be crowned there.286
Cologne would thus be a doubly symbolically charged place, and the reintroduction of the
monarchy would also mean a moral uplift of the church. The pope must inevitably be where
the monarchy is reborn. The connection between Cologne and the German Pope is therefore
striking. From Pope Benedict XVI It is also known that he dealt with Christian mysticism, for
example with Hildegard von Bingen (1098-1179). It is also known that the former longtime
confessor of Benedict XVI. (before his papal period) the Benedictine Father Frumentius (d.
2000) from St. Ottilien near Munich dealt with occultism (astrology and sidereal pendulum)
and owned the original manuscript of the field post letter prophecy in which the fleeing pope
claims that he is considered a traitor and comes to Cologne.287 Moreover, Father Frumentius
not only possessed this prophecy, but published it, and he attended several meetings of
private prophecy researchers in the years before his death at the monastery of St. Ottilien.
Father Frumentius was therefore quite willing to communicate on the subject of prophecy, and
within his modest limits he also campaigned for it. So we have to assume that Pope Benedict
XVI. knows that at some point a pope accused of treason is supposed to flee Italy shortly
before the Russian attack and arrive in Cologne a little later to crown new European monarchs
after defeating the Red Army!

Otherwise, I'll gladly admit that at the moment I can only imagine with difficulty that Benedict
XVI. reigning Pope once more. But he would definitely be a better match for Cologne than the
Argentine Pope Francis.

* I also attended two of these meetings. Shortly before his death I also visited Father Frumentius in St.
Ottilien and gave him my book Prophecies on the Future of Europe (1997). Father Frumentius' comment:
"I already know that!"

The Alleged Papal Trip to Moscow

Since the year 2000, rumours have been circulating on the Internet that the Pope will allegedly
travel to Moscow at some point and that World War III will break out shortly thereafter. A
corresponding statement is said to have been made in connection with the apparition of Mary
in San Sebastián de Garabandal and is based on an oral statement by one of the children's
seers. The primary source, which as far as I know was the first to publish the statement, is a
kind of commercial newsletter and its content is not entirely unproblematic. As far as I know,
there are no witnesses so far.288
So, of course, the papal trip is again a rather shaky affair.

I mention them anyway because prophecies about the fate of celebrities are very popular and
the pope thing in Moscow would surely spread like wildfire once the Vatican announces the
Pope's Moscow travel plans.

The Weather in the Months Before the War

Of course, it was also clear to the clairvoyants that people want to know when exactly the big
events will happen. Every now and then they mentioned the year. But as we have seen with
Buchela and David Wilkerson, this often goes wrong. And many more such cases with wrong
dates could be listed. Correct year predictions are extremely rare; so rare that it is better to
keep your hands off date predictions. It makes much more sense to pay attention to signs.

Most of these omens are based on optical visions, pictures and films seen by a seer. And in
many of these optical visions, elements appear in the background of the actual event that help
determine the point in time more precisely: for example, seasonal weather conditions and the
state of the plant world. The grain harvest at the time of the Russian attack has already been
mentioned. With such omens one cannot get an exact date, but one can make statements as
to whether a certain event should now occur three, six or nine months before the outbreak of
war in midsummer.

The European prophecies known so far allow us to reconstruct the weather conditions from
the pre-war winter onwards: the pre-war winter in Central Europe is said to be mild and
relatively short, the spring that follows is said to be very early, warm and beautiful. In the
summer before the war broke out, a brief cold snap was said to suddenly occur.

Corresponding weather forecasts have been known in connoisseur circles for a long time,
after all these signs can easily be observed in the real world. You just have to look out the
window. So in a way, starting around December, you start looking at what's happening with
the weather. If the winter is long and cold, this would definitely be an exclusion criterion
according to European prophecy. Then there would definitely be no war in Central and
Western Europe in the following year.
Of course, one would also have to pay attention to all the other signs. But if they did, these
would mostly only occur between spring and midsummer.

The Mild Pre-War Winter

In the meantime, one or the other reader may have started to yawn because he thinks: »We
now have mild winters and early springs every other year.« That's right. But the seers
sometimes give such precise information that one can also say how mild and short the winter
should be.

Frau Landinger (1957, northern Upper Palatinate):

Winter was here and yet no winter, not cold, little frost, almost no snow.289

Here we have a nice example of the grey area of interpretation: If it said "not cold" there, you
might think: "Aha, so no frost." But immediately afterwards it says "little frost", so just a little
frost.
Mind you, this statement only applies to the Upper Palatinate and cannot automatically be
transferred 1:1 to other areas.
Hermann Kappelmann (-1800, Westphalia):
But if the winter was short, if the cowslips bloom early and it seems calm, then nobody believes in peace.276
Cowslips are widespread in Central Europe and are considered the first heralds of spring.
They prefer semi-arid grassland, dry meadows and light deciduous forests. The flowering
period is given on Wikipedia for Germany as April to June, and for Austria and Switzerland as
February to May.

Note: In 2002, when March was a bit too warm throughout Germany, cowslips were already
blooming in some areas around March 20th.

Fig. 42: Cowslip

Irlmaier (1950, Southeast Bavaria):

January is sometimes so warm that people dance. February brings cold weather, allowing brewers to fill their ice
cellars.291

A change from mild January to very cold February is relatively rare. In the period from 1982 to
2014, this only happened about four times in south-eastern Bavaria.292

However, it would be risky to orientate yourself too much on this single statement for
January/February. Alois Irlmaier is in and of itself a very reliable source, but one can never be
completely sure of the tradition if there is only one witness in the specific case.

The »Muckn« might mean winter gnats. They are insensitive to cold because their body has
a glycerin-like substance that prevents them from freezing like an antifreeze. Winter
mosquitoes become active at just above 0°C, and the male mosquitoes like to form swarms
on sunny winter days. In that January it should therefore be frost-free and sunny on a few days
during the day. How many warm January days there are remains unclear.

Also wondering where exactly? Somewhere in Southeast Bavaria for sure. But whether it
would also be in Hesse or Hamburg would be entirely speculative. Certainly in the vicinity of
Irlmaier's place of residence, Freilassing. But due to the occasional foehn wind that occurs
there, it could be a bit colder in Munich.

There is also a certain amount of room for interpretation when it comes to mosquitoes. It would
only be clear that the statement refers to the extreme south-east of Bavaria and that there
should be a few sunny days with a little over zero degrees in January. In addition, these days
should be fairly windless, since there will be no swarms of mosquitoes if the wind is stronger.
This in turn points to a reasonably stable high pressure area over Central Europe.

If it is so cold in February (in south-eastern Bavaria) that the brewers can fill up the ice cellars,
then this means a longer permafrost period in which lakes and ponds freeze over so that a
thick layer of ice forms.

The Early Spring

Irlmaier (1950, Southeast Bavaria):

But in March [after January and February] the peasants build Habern.295

»Habern build« means to grow or sow oats. In the war years, the farmers would have to be
sure by mid-March that it would no longer freeze. That should be evident from the general
weather situation over Europe, which would mean that the weather seems stable over the
whole of Central Europe and neither Iceland nor Russia should be expected to experience a
cold snap.

Of course, the cowslips mentioned above by Hermann Kappelmann from Westphalia also go
well with the warm March.

Frau Landinger (1957, northern Upper Palatinate):

...the cattle were already out on the pasture in April. At that time there was a lot of talk about the war.294

This in turn coincides with the prophecy of Hermann Kappelmann, according to whose
prediction fear of war prevailed in northern Germany when cowslips bloomed early. However,
it remains unclear whether this war is also a direct threat to Germany or whether it is just a
threat of a larger Middle East war brewing. (See also the chapter "The Fall of Babylon'' on
page 274)

Eilert (1833, Dortmund):

In the year when the war breaks out, spring will be so beautiful that by April the cows will already be walking in the
295
full grass.
Curique (1872, France):
295
Spring will be early and beautiful this year, cows will be grazing on rich pastures as early as April.

Since the year 2000, we have had warm and beautiful springs almost every other year. If cows
are already in full pastures in April, this means a warm March in which the grass has already
grown properly. Grass begins to grow at a temperature of seven to eight degrees. According
to relevant weather data, there was an average temperature (day and night) of at least eight
degrees in Munich in March in the following years: 1989, 1990, 1994, 2012 and 2014.
Prophecy of the birch tree (1700, Westphalia):
... that the outbreak of war was preceded by an early and very beautiful spring.297

Egger Gilge (1735, Tyrol):

There will come a year when there will be a very beautiful spring... in the autumn the great tribulation will come.296

The beautiful spring is therefore predicted by sources from Tyrol, Southeast Bavaria, the
Upper Palatinate and Northern Germany. One or the other of these sources may not be
satisfactorily secured in terms of their credibility, but overall, in my opinion, there is a
sufficiently solid source basis for the early and very beautiful spring.

For the preceding winter, this means that it is short. There is only one source for the sometimes
mild January and cold February in south-east Bavaria and the low snow cover and little frost
in the Upper Palatinate. However, Irlmaier and Landinger agree that the frost period in eastern
Bavaria cannot be too long.

Fig. 43: Munich-Maxvorftadt (City) - mean daily temperatures 1982-2014 see 1991, 2003 and 2012, with
2012 fitting best.

The Cold Snap of Summer

The next weather omen in the war year is a cold snap in the beginning of summer some time
before the outbreak of war, probably in the period from mid-May to mid-June. This event is
also predicted by several sources, namely sources from Spain, Tyrol, north-eastern Austria
and Bohemia. This wide geographical spread of the sources alone is an indication that this
omen is based on real visionary abilities.

From a meteorological point of view, there is a known climate pattern for such a cold snap at
the beginning of summer in Central Europe, namely the ice saints in mid-May and the sheep
cold around June 10th. During this time it can get pretty cold for a short time. For example, on
May 30, 2006, the snow line in southern Germany fell to 700 meters, and there was snowfall
in the Allgäu, the Fichtelgebirge and also in the Ore Mountains and in the Harz Mountains.

Let's start with the source from Spain: In San Sebastián de Garabandal - Garabandal for short
- a northern Spanish mountain village, there was a series of Marian apparitions in the years
1961 to 1965. The Virgin Mary is said to have appeared to four girls who were eleven to twelve
years old at the beginning of the apparitions. Over time, the Garabandal apparitions became
better known and today Garabandal is one of the most famous Marian apparition sites in the
world.

The Virgin Mary is supposed to have one last warning sign (see page 255), and foretold a
subsequent event in Garabandal, called the "great miracle," to occur before the cataclysms.

The miracle is said to be a spiritual event with great healing powers, and its occurrence is said
to be announced eight days in advance, so that one can travel to Garabandal even from a
greater distance - which, by the way, could be interpreted as meaning that there is not too
much chaos at this point reigns in Europe.

Conchita, one of the girls, is rendered as follows:

The day [of the great miracle] is between the 7th and the 17th of a month and it will coincide with a happy event in
the church which, Conchita later explained further, was nothing new in the life of the church, but had not yet taken
place at the time of her life. So she said in 1967. Furthermore, it would coincide with the day of a saint who was
martyred in connection with St. Eucharist died and whose commemoration day is no longer the original day but has
been shifted in the calendar of the saints' feasts.
The month will be between February and July, and finally, so said
Conchita once, it happens after the big snow. When she spontaneously assumed that it would be spring, she
300
replied: "It can also snow in summer."

Even if it is not expressly stated where "the big snow" falls, it is likely to be San Sebastián de
Garabandal and the adjacent regions. Garabandal is located on the north side of the
Cantabrian Mountains around 400 meters above sea level, around 25 km south of the Spanish
Atlantic coast. South of Garabandal, the Cantabrian Mountains rise to over 2,000 meters.
Foothills of a moist polar cold front could advance unhindered across the North Atlantic to
northern Spain and lead to heavy snowfall there.

Egger Gilge (1735, Tyrol):

There will come a year when there will be a very beautiful spring; later, however, it will be cold and snowing, so
that the mountain farmers fear that it will no longer be able to ripen. But this will still work out well. One should not
301
lament in the spring, the great tribulation will come in the autumn.
Mind you, it is the mountain farmers who are concerned here, not the farmers in the valley. If
even the snow at higher altitudes - say around 1000 meters - thaws again quickly, it can only
be a question of a brief cold snap. "Spring" would mean that snowfall occurs in May rather
than June.

Sibylle Michaida (1868, Bohemia):

But before that time comes, twelve signs will be given to men. [...] The tenth sign will be when snow will be brought
in instead of hay, for at the time of haymaking much snow will fall.302

The old German word Fächsung (also Fechsung) means harvest and describes both the
harvesting process and the harvest brought in. In normal years, the actual haymaking takes
place in June before the hay blossom. In the war year it would have to be a little earlier, since
spring also begins much earlier.

Should the weather from January to June actually develop according to the predicted pattern
during the war year, then the cold snap in early summer would of course be one of the last
signs and a warning to initiate final preparations. In any case, the European sources for the
pre-war months describe an overall quite unmistakable weather pattern, even if there is some
room for interpretation at some points.

Possibly a Drought in Midsummer

For the sake of completeness, two well-known forecasts will be discussed, which indicate that
there will be a drought in Central Europe in the war year shortly before the outbreak of war. I
deliberately formulate this carefully, because here too the devil is in the details. In view of the
particularly credible sources in this case, it would be clear that there would be a drought, but
it would be unclear whether this drought would already lead to visible consequences (e.g. low
river levels) before the war broke out.

Field post letters (1914, Bavaria/Alsace):

In the third event [Third World War], Russia is supposed to invade Germany and [...] the Russians are supposed
to [afterward] leave all the war equipment behind. Up to the Danube [from the north] [...] everything will be razed to
the ground and destroyed. The rivers are all so shallow that you don't need a bridge to cross them. 303

The witness Andreas Rill, who wrote down the statements of the French clairvoyant in his two
field post letters, jumps back and forth in time: First he talks about the Russian attack and the
Russian flight after the failed attack. He then jumps back in time to the fighting before the
Russians fled. Then he mentions the drought. So it remains unclear whether the rivers were
so shallow only after the war or already at the beginning of the war. The latter can be strongly
doubted, because the rivers Rhine and Danube are often given in the sources as the limit of
the Russian advance. But if the Rhine and Danube were so shallow by the end of
July/beginning of August that Russian tanks could find a spot every few kilometres where they
could get across without major problems, neither the Danube nor the Rhine would be an
obstacle anymore. Alois Irlmaier also expressly states that when the Russians attacked
Regensburg there was no longer a bridge over the Danube.304
Why should the German Bundeswehr blow up the Danube bridges east of Regensburg if the
enemy no longer needs them, since the rivers are shallow enough to drive through?
Alois Irlmaier on the drought:
...but do not open a window during the 72 hours [of the three-day darkness]. The rivers will have so little water that
it's easy to walk through. [...] The wind drives the death clouds away to the east.305

Irlmaier mentions the shallow rivers in connection with the three-day eclipse, i.e. around the
end of October/beginning of November. It cannot be ruled out that he meant the time or the
days after the eclipse.

Of course, it would also be conceivable that the drought would start as early as the end of
June, but at this point it would not be possible to estimate whether it would really be a severe
drought. As a sign, the drought would therefore be relatively worthless. It would be a late and
uncertain omen.

If you want to follow the river levels in Bavaria more closely, you can view the current water
levels at www.hnd.bayern.de/karten/hauptkarte.php.

Then, for the sake of completeness, two sources are briefly quoted according to which the
summer in the war year before the start of the war was very warm.

Marie Julie Jahenny (1850-1941, Brittany):

Hot south wind precedes calamity (in Europe).306

Berta Zängeler (St. Gallen/Switzerland, around 1950, appeared on the internet in 2008):
A hot summer, floods on the beaches of the sea, the beaches of sin are swept away. Spain will burn for its crimes
in the colonies [unrest, civil war, possibly in connection with the Catalans' aspirations for independence].
War breaks out in the Middle East. [...] The Russians will invade Western Europe as revenge for the fact that the
satellite states have become independent.307

As I said: By the summer, so many signs should have come true or their fulfilment should
become apparent that it would be pointless to wait for the summer to turn out to be particularly
hot.

Other Portents for Europe

An International Crisis in the Spring of the War Year
Several sources predict a very tense political situation a few months before the outbreak of
war. Specifically, April and May are mentioned. At first glance, this seems to contradict the
prophesied surprise attack, but this contradiction can be explained by the fact that, after a brief
period of concern, the broad mass of the population believes that the danger has been
overcome. A certain deadening effect should also be taken into account, since there may have
been similar crisis situations in the past and in these cases "nothing happened" - for example
in March 2014, when Crimea was annexed by Russia, and in February 2015, when the
situation briefly deteriorated.

The sources that comment on the crisis in the spring are not entirely convincing in terms of
their credibility, but the underlying theme of a tangibly serious crisis a few months before the
outbreak of war in Europe is also hinted at in other sources, timing more diffuse.

Two sources already mentioned point to a serious crisis at the end of March/April:

Hermann Kappelmann (-1800, Westphalia):

But if the winter was short, if the cowslips bloom early [late March/early April] and it seems calm, then no one
308
believes in peace.

Frau Landinger (1957, northern Upper Palatinate):

...the cattle were already out on the pasture in April. During this time there was much talk of war.309

The Landinger source is, so to speak, the key source in the event of a crisis in the spring. The
language of the original text is clear and direct, and the text reads as if it was written very soon
after the vision. Symbolic or mental images appear in the vision, from which one recognizes
that the vision comes from a deeper level of the soul. The images themselves are described
very clearly, indicating good memory and clear awareness on the part of the viewer. In
principle, all the details of the vision appear in other prophecies as well.

The next source mentions May, which would in no way contradict the first two sources if the
crisis dragged on for several weeks.

Source from Theodor Beykirch's "Prophet Voices" (1622):

The month of May will prepare for war in earnest; but it's not the time for that yet.
The month of June will also invite war;
but then it's not time.
The month of July will act gravely and cruelly,
that many have to say goodbye to their wives and children.
In August, war will be heard from all corners of the world.310

The war build-up in May would be appropriate if something happened in April to provoke a
military response. However, Hermann Kappelmann and the source from Theodor Beykirch's
»Prophet Stimme« are critical insofar as hardly anything can be said about their credibility.

Johann Peter Knopp (1794, Rheinland):

311
Then there will be war if no one believes it; one will fear, and it will be calm again and everyone will be carefree.

There's no timeline here, but we do have an indication of a possible deadening effect.

Katharina from the Ötztal (1951, Austria):
It starts slowly. First the young boys are picked up in strange cars [probably reservists with military vehicles]. They
still sing and cheer out into the valley. But then comes a hard time. Only the elderly and women are available at
home and for field work. The need is getting bigger and bigger. And you say to each other: »It can no longer work,
it will never work«, and it still goes on. It's going down a lot longer than people think at first. "Then suddenly it
breaks" [W. J. Bekh suspects “revolutions”, here] The people are in the fields, it's late summer, the corn is already
ripe, here they come, all of them Hordes of schiacher (wild looking people) and ambush everything. 312

The "shiach" people are probably German war refugees who come from the area north of Lake
Constance (see Franz Kugelbeer, page 223). The refugees from Germany arrive in Ötztal
after a few days of walking. And certainly it would be mostly younger men. War would not be
expected in western Austria, eastern Switzerland and in the Allgäu.

If Austrian reservists are drafted some time earlier and they are in good spirits, it should not
be a question of a direct crisis with Russia. The mines would certainly be serious there. But
where exactly the crisis would be remains speculation.

It is also unclear how long before the outbreak of war the reservists will be drafted. If there are
complaints that men are absent from the field work, one could conclude that these men were
still at home the year before. But whether the reservists will be called up four or ten months
before the outbreak of war remains a matter of speculation based on this source. It could be
criticised that the harvest is now brought in with large machines and that there are not many
people in the fields at harvest time as in earlier times.

As can be seen, the source situation on the premonition "international crisis in the spring of
the war year" is mixed. I would only describe Landinger and Katharina from Ötztal as good
sources. The latter, however, seems to be caught up in an imagery from 60 years ago (field
workers instead of machines).

Despite the lack of robustness of the source base in this case, it is clear that the accidental
must simply be mentioned in a book like this.

The Assassination Before the Outbreak of War

As already mentioned above in connection with the Ukraine, according to repeated statements
by Alois Irlmaier, there should have been a series of three assassination attempts on “high-
ranking figures”, i.e. presumably leading politicians, before the war broke out, and at least
assassination attempt no. 3 should have taken place in Europe.

However, it is unclear whether assassination attempts #1 and #2 have already taken place. In
one case, Alois Irlmaier is quoted as saying that the first two assassination attempts had
already taken place313 , and in another case Irlmaier is said to have said that these were the
assassination attempts on Mahatma Gandhi (died January 30, 1948) and the Swedish
diplomat Folke Bernadotte (d. 17 September 1948)314
Of course, it makes little sense to speak of a series of attacks if the first attacks are only eight
months apart, but up to attack no. 3 more than 60 years pass away. So how can the
contradiction be resolved?
One could assume that Gandhi and Bernadotte were only interpretations of Irlmaier. Because
if he had actually recognized these two politicians in a vision, he would probably have
described the course of these assassinations in more detail. At least that's what he did in the
case of the third assassination (see below). Assassination attempts are particularly revealing
because of the course of events and the causes. Just think of the assassination of the Austrian
heir to the throne Franz-Ferdinand (1914), the assassination of Adolf Hitler (1939 and 1944),
the assassination of John F. Kennedy (1963), Anwar Sadat (1981), Pope John Paul II. (1981)
etc.

The series of attacks predicted by Irlmaier is well known and encourages endless speculation
as to who might be involved. But even this sign is not very helpful in terms of precaution,
despite its superficiality, which attracts the public. As far as I know, the source basis for the
first two attacks is simply too thin. It may be that it is actually a future three-series and that
Irlmaier misinterpreted his own vision.

However, an assassination attempt or the (violent) death of a well-known personality

immediately before the war is predicted by several sources:

Refugee Woman from Bohemia (ca. 1944, Bohemia; published 1988):

In the Middle East it will begin [...]
a famous statesman will be assassinated. [...]
315
There will be a conference between four towers, by then it will already be too late.

Berta Zängeler (around 1950, St. Gallen/Switzerland, appeared on the internet in 2008):
A great one will die, after which the purification will begin.316

Alois Irlmaier (1959, Bavaria):

I have already quoted the following statement by Irlmaier on the assassination. The seer is
said to have made it just before his death, and it is said to have been his answer to the question
of whether he still sees everything the way he did more than ten years ago.

It hasn't changed in the slightest. Just because it's gotten closer, I see it a lot clearer. And I see the two men who
kill the third superior. You have been paid by other people. One killer is a small black man, the other a little taller
with light skin. I think it will be in the Balkans, but I can't say for sure. ... After the murder of the third it starts
overnight.317

It is noticeable that immediately before his death, Alois Irlmaier did not revise the "thesis" with
the three attacks and continues to speak of the third high ranking officer, although it is clear to
him that - according to his earlier interpretation - the first two attacks were now more than ten
years ago . Unfortunately, it was not asked here whether he now sees things differently about
the (supposedly) two previous attacks. Around 1952 Irlmaier said:
People always think that everything has to be the way they want it to be. But I see clearly that a new war will come
upon us. First they kill the third person, also a high ranking one. Two hams already murdered. Over there he has
to believe in where the sun rises and then it breaks out overnight. The war will be cruel.318

Irlmaier also testified to other witnesses that the war broke out the night after the attack. On
this point there is no doubt.

Since the two great powers would be perfectly aware at this point, just before the war, how
tense the whole situation is, it should be considered that the assassination was carried out in
order to provide a reason for war; a false flag operation or a provocation.

In short: The third assassination would be interesting for historians, but not for people who
want to get to safety in time. The first two assassination attempts would be more interesting in
this respect, but the data concerned are all but useless. It may be that Alois Irlmaier saw a
future series of attacks in the early 1950s, despite his incorrect interpretation. Then there
would undoubtedly be a useful sign. But it's probably best not to rely on that.

Close to the Limit

The following thing moves very close to the limit of what I, as an author striving for seriousness,
consider acceptable. When I say seriousness, I don't mean so much the goodwill of some
specialist scholars - there are none in the case of European prophecy anyway - but rather the
long-term resilience of my statements published here. Specifically, it is about the (alleged)
prediction of an assassination attempt on Barack Obama immediately before the outbreak of
war.

Since Barack Obama is in his second term and cannot be re-elected, this means that
according to European prophecy, this assassination could be carried out by mid-summer 2016
at the latest.

This results in a not uninteresting piece of information with regard to the dating of the Third
World War. However, I would not overestimate this information either.
If one disregards the dating aspect, an assassination attempt on the American President would
of course be useless in terms of signs and precautions, as already mentioned, because "the
Russians" would then be in our country a few hours later anyway.
 Fig. 44: US President Barack Obama (detail from official photo)

However, the assassination would be interesting insofar as the predicted circumstances

indicate that the USA appears to be changing its Russia policy somewhat shortly before the
outbreak of war and apparently swinging in the direction of peace.

The overall picture of the assassination attempt on the American President is essentially made
up of statements Irlmaier has handed down. According to this, an attack was carried out on
the US President during a peace conference - apparently in the Balkans - and in one case
Irlmaier is said to have described the assassination victim as a "peace fighter".319
This would mean that the US has at some point moved closer to Russia and stopped
demonising Vladimir Putin.

The majority of the Irlmaier quotes that have been handed down have been known to me for
a long time. So far, however, I have considered an assassination attempt on the US President
to be nonsense, and I thought to myself that in such an obviously tense global political
situation, the US administration would at best send the US Vice President to Russia's forecourt
(see below).

* which is not only predicted by Alois Irlmaier, see above the place of negotiation with the »four towers« in
the case of the refugee woman from Bohemia.
But then this happened:
At a lecture that I gave in early February 2015 not far from where Irlmaier lives in Freilassing,
a woman spoke to me, and I spoke to them a day later on the phone. The woman then told
me that Irlmaier is said to have predicted the following to a Capuchin priest from Altötting:
America will have a black president.
He will be murdered.
Then World War III begins.

The Capuchin Father has since passed away. The woman claims to have learned about this
Irlmaier prediction from a man who was, among other things, in cast form and who in turn
knew Capuchin personally. But this man also died three years ago. In the course of the
telephone conversation it also emerged that the flow of information Irlmaier - Capuchin monk
- manufacturer of holy pictures - witnessed took place within a believing Catholic milieu.

Now to the source situation that existed before the above statement with the assassination
attempt on the black president: It was already clear in 1949/1950 that Irlmaier saw three
assassination attempts and that the war was to break out immediately after the third
assassination attempt on a "high-ranking man". Then, in 2002, Alois Irlmaier's "courier text"
appeared, allegedly from October 1945, after which "the blacks" came to power in the USA.
I've always interpreted it to mean that the US is electing a black president and that Irlmaier
misinterpreted a vision. After all, roughly 13 percent of US citizens with African roots are
unlikely to seize power.

Of course, it is noticeable that Irlmaier never spoke to newspapers about the US President in
1949/1950. And the fact that he kept coming up with the phrase "higher ranking" suggests that
he deliberately withheld details on this matter, out of caution towards the American occupying
powers, who at the time still had a say in Bavaria. The matter becomes even more ambiguous
when you know that, according to witnesses, US military and senior US officials also sought
advice from Irlmaier. A statement has been handed down from Irlmaier himself, according to
which, when everything once again became too much for him, he said:
But I won't tell anyone anything anymore! Net amal to the Americans!320

Press articles from the time state that General Lucius D. Clay's sister was with Irlmaier. Lucius
D. Clay was military governor of the US occupation zone in Germany from 1947 to 1949 and
initiator of the Berlin Airlift. US Ambassador Murphy, who was General Clay's political adviser
around 1947, is also said to have visited Irlmaier. Irlmaier is also said to have had no problems
moving from Germany to Austria shortly after the war, when the German-Austrian border was
closed, because the Americans let him through. In the courier text from (allegedly) 1945,
Irlmaier's place of residence is given as Itzling or Salzburg-Itzling', apparently in order not to
raise any questions as to why an ordinary German well builder was able to cross the German-
Austrian border without any problems in those days.

All of this indicates that a relationship of trust developed between Alois Irlmaier and the
Americans and the American military relatively soon after the end of the war. And it is obvious
that Irlmaier did not mince his words within the framework of this relationship of trust and the
repeated four-eye contact. The aforementioned Irlmaier friend told me in the spring of 2014
that he had personally seen a fat US limousine (allegedly a Buick) with a general's standard
plus military police jeep and two Harley-Davidson escorts parked in front of Irlmaier's house.
Irlmaier, who could be quite hard-nosed, is said to have put the Americans off until the next
day, because that day he was no longer interested in clairvoyant services. When the
Americans drove on to Salzburg, Irlmaier is said to have had schnapps with his friends.

So it has to be taken into account that the Americans made it clear to Irlmaier relatively soon
or asked him not to say this or that about the fate of the USA to the press. A corresponding
pattern can be clearly seen in Irlmaier's US forecasts. This concerns a rocket attack on
(probably) New York City (see page 275) and a civil war in the USA. In the courier text, on the
other hand - apparently from the time before contact with the Americans even came about -
Irlmaier expressed himself very critically towards the USA, in fact downright scathing.

Also in 2002, another Irlmaier witness was found who spoke explicitly of an assassination
attempt on an allegedly "juvenile-looking" US President. However, this witness and his
sometimes contradictory recording was too unreliable for me. And there was no mention of a
“black” president in the 2002 witness either.

Then, in 2014, I interviewed Irlmaier's friend, who Irlmaier is said to have said:
"Oh, go toats ... if it killed the third peace fighter."321

The new witness from the beginning of 2015 now puts together all previous fragments in a
meaningful way: that the USA will have a black US President, the assassination of a
(supposedly) youthful-looking US President, the time of the assassination just before the
outbreak of war and a possible peace initiative by the murdered man.

* Itzling is now a district of Salzburg and about three kilometres from Freilassing as the crow flies.

Here are the quotes in detail:

March 2002, source of courier text:
America will assassinate their own presidents.
Power will come to the blacks who have been in the dust for so long.
Immorality, crime will be called originality over there.
I see the cloud houses falling in on themselves.'
America will always wage wars in the East and never win again.
God has turned away.322

It may sound like splitting hairs, but only one US President has been assassinated in Irlmaier's
lifetime: John E Kennedy. But here they are talking about "their own presidents." It is also
noticeable that in the text the murdered presidents are followed by the blacks who are given
power. Coincidence?

2002, source witness »Gärtner« (author Bouvier):

The spheres of influence and areas of interest of the US and Russia collide; there are already minor skirmishes
[Ukraine? note Berndt]; Peace Conference USA/Russia in Bucharest; the American President is assassinated, and
323
the Vice President immediately declares war on Russia.

Although the following quote is about the same witness »Gärtner«, the next author states that
the place of trial is Budapest and not Bucharest as above. This lack of clarity was one of the
reasons why I did not continue to use this source for many years.
2002, source witness »Gärtner« (author DeGard):
»There is [...] a conference in Budapest at very short notice. A high-ranking officer is murdered, probably [!]
stabbed.« The witness from whom this statement was handed down and who knew Irlmaier well believes today
that the “high-ranking officer” is a young-looking American president.324

As I said, the assassination itself would not be so decisive. From my point of view, what would
be decisive would be an apparent change in Washington's policy towards Russia, which would
have to take place some time beforehand.

* Of course, that smells a lot like 9/11. Unfortunately, the only flaw is that this text was only published in
March 2002 because someone realised too late what he had been lying in his drawer for decades.

A Major Solar Flare as a "Warning"?

As already mentioned above (see page 243), according to the statements of the seers of
Garabandal (northern Spain) there should be one last warning sign before the start of the great
catastrophes (war and three-day darkness):
A great catastrophe will befall mankind, a punishment for not reforming. Before that, God will work a global warning
325
and then a great miracle in Garabandal to give mankind a final reminder to repent.

So first a warning and then a miracle (in Garabandal after the "big snow"). The warning is
further specified:
No man on earth, no matter where he is, will be able to escape the warning. This will be something extremely
terrifying. The phenomenon will be like fire that will not burn the flesh but will be felt physically and spiritually. [...]
The warning will be visible around the world, last only a few minutes, and come directly from God.326
The warning will be something terrible happening in the sky327

A globally visible phenomenon in the sky that lasts only a few minutes would have to have its
origin in space. The cause cannot lie within the earth's atmosphere (sky). The closest would
be a solar flare and a shower of charged particles. Since the solar wind needs a certain amount
of time to reach Earth, there should be advance warnings in the media, if only because of civil
air traffic.

From a parapsychological point of view, it can be said that there is basically a lot to be said
for a genuine supernatural inspiration of the Marian apparition in Garabandal. However, a
global phenomenon - even if it lasts only a few minutes - would be expected to have been
foreseen by other seers around the world. As far as I know, there are still no corresponding
studies.

How long before the miracle the warning is to come is not entirely clear. However, a temporary
proximity to the miracle would be assumed. The miracle is said to occur "between the 7th and
17th of a month," hinted at in early summer (~mid-May to early June, see The Summer Cold
Snap, page 243).328
One or the other reader may be disturbed by the Christian-Catholic language of the Marian
apparition in Garabandal. But if one believes in the primacy of a spiritual world and that the
real meaning of the human species lies in the development of consciousness, it would seem
obvious that things would happen before the actual catastrophes began to help people, the
overall development in a spiritual or to interpret cosmic context.
If an unprecedented solar flare were to occur a few weeks before the outbreak of the Third
World War, hardly anyone would be able to dismiss this as a "coincidence". In any case, given
this most unusual solar flare in this most tense world situation, it would be clear that there
must be an interrelationship between humanity's consciousness and a higher system.
Whether you call it God, divine consciousness, or whatever, there should be a higher level of
control that is beyond human control. This phenomenon in the sky would make every person
feel that they are part of something that reaches infinitely far beyond their individual existence,
something that perceives the processes on earth and, if necessary, also intervenes in them.

The "Last" Pope

The well-known Prophecy of Malachy is a list of 112 popes, beginning with Celestine II (1143-
1144), in which each pope is assigned a brief aphorism. The authorship of the prophecy is not
entirely clear, but it is assumed that it goes back to Philip Neri (1595), an important church
reformer.
According to Wikipedia, number 111 of these 112 popes is Pope Benedict XVI. and number
112 Pope Francis, who - according to Wikipedia - "is prophesied to be the last pope". Of
course, Wikipedia is not the most desirable source in this context, as it is not secure enough.
On the other hand, Wikipedia is suitable here because many people will look there first when
they hear about this prophecy and the »end of the popes« for the first time.

As far as the idea of a "last pope" is concerned, it should be pointed out that, according to
European prophecy, after the war and the three days of darkness there will still be a Christian
church, and there is even said to be a unification of the Christian churches. And should there
be such a great will for unity, this will for unity should, as so often in history, find its expression
in an outstanding personality who symbolises this unity. That would mean: Even after the Third
World War there would still be something like a head of the church, even if this were no longer
Catholic, but one church.
If European prophecy is to be believed, the state of peace in Europe would exist for at least
several decades, and Pope Francis, who was born on December 17, 1936, would hardly last
that long. So if Francis were really the last pope, he would only be so insofar as the Catholic
Church would be merged into a Christian unitary church after him, and as a result the previous
office of the pope would be superfluous.
In the sense of the "last omens" the prophecy of a last pope is also of little help. I mention it
anyway because it could become a seemingly important issue for many people, and then it
would be good to know that the "end of the Catholic Church" is in no way equivalent to the
"end of the Christian Church".
Civil War in Spain

I am aware of significantly fewer sources on the civil war in Spain than in the case of France
and Italy. But in connection with the economic crisis in Spain and the Catalans' striving for
independence, Spain should also be kept in mind. In terms of signs, social and political
developments have the advantage over sudden events such as the outbreak of war and
natural disasters that you can follow their development better.

Berta Zängeler (around 1950, St. Gallen/Switzerland, appeared on the internet in 2008):
A hot summer, floods on the beaches of the sea, the beaches of sin are swept away. Spain will burn for its crimes
in the colonies [riots, civil war]. War breaks out in the Middle East. [...] The Russians will invade Western
Europe...329

Embassy of La Salette (1846, France):

France, Italy, Spain and England will be at war. The blood will flow in the streets. The French will fight with the
French, the Italian with the Italian. Eventually there will be a general war, which will be horrendous. 330

I have already explained above that this text can be understood as a reference to a civil war
in Spain, even if it is not expressly stated that there is a civil war in Spain.

Palma Addolorata Matterelli (1825-1872, Oria, Italy, also Palma d'Oria):

Republics will be proclaimed in France, Spain and Italy. Then there will be a civil war in these countries. [...]
Extraordinary signs will appear in the sky. [...] The proclamation of the republic in Spain will be the sign [probably
for Italy]. [... that the revolution will also come there]. 331

This seer was an illiterate peasant woman whose stigmata first appeared around the age of
30. She also foresaw the three-day eclipse, and like other seers, "true peace" and the
"triumph of the church." Of course, France and Italy have long been republics. Some text
passages seem a bit exaggerated, and individual images seem a bit misinterpreted. It is
conceivable that Palma Matterelli only saw that the established governments were being
pushed out of office by the people and that Palma Matterelli described this in the terminology
of the 19th century.

The source base for some kind of coup in Spain is quite thin, and one can complain that
there is no source from the country itself. Comparing the situation with France, there should
be multiple sources in Spain relating to the riots. As far as I know, nothing has been
translated into German so far.

The World Outside Europe

The Price of Gold
Knowing nothing of the prophecies, many of those who are closely watching the development
of the world economic system expect a final currency and financial crash. There are countless
economists predicting a crash - occasionally even on television - and there are a whole heap
of books on the subject of economic and financial crashes, many of which have become
bestsellers.

Should the crash really come one day and you haven't made any provisions, you can't hope
for leniency. You will then probably be told that there have been enough warnings for a long
time and that it is your own fault for not heeding them. And the people who hold this against
you will even be right.

A well-known, long-recommended precautionary measure and hedging strategy against the

crash is the purchase of gold and silver. In the history of mankind both metals have always
had their value, they offer a safe haven in the event of a currency reform, a euro crash, high
inflation or a total loss of securities such as government bonds, real estate funds, life insurance
policies, etc.

On the other hand, gold is a symbol of greed, power and materialism. Gold not only glitters, it
also has a dark side. Lots of people have been killed for the gold. You can't eat it when you're
in dire need, and woe betide other people then find out that you have gold and you can't defend
yourself.
However, when some time after the disasters order returns, the economy picks up again and
trade picks up again, there are certainly benefits to owning gold. In any case, during the great
chaos and hardship, you should refrain from paying anywhere with precious metal unless you
know these people really well.
The real reason for this chapter is a prophecy by the American evangelist David Wilkerson,
who in 1973 not only predicted that those who hoard gold would suffer huge losses, but - and
this is the real point - that this prediction was "one of the clearest predictions" of his book!

Whether I like it or not, I have no choice but to deal with this prediction. Anything else would
simply be unfair to the reader of my book.

Here is David Wilkerson's prediction from 1973, when the price of gold was rising and rising:
Gold prices are constantly rising. But those who invest their money in gold in the hope of finding some security are
in for a tragic surprise. The price of gold will reach astronomical heights, but won't be able to remain so high for too
long. Silver is also going to become a very, very precious metal and it will see its price go wild. But neither silver
nor gold will provide real security. The fluctuating value of these precious metals will become part of the bigger
picture of the economic confusion gripping the world. Believe it or not, the gold won't hold its value either. People
332
who hoard gold will suffer huge losses. This is one of the clearest predictions of this book.

Let's first compare David Wilkerson's prediction of April 1973' with the actual gold price
development at that time:
 Fig. 45: Inflation-adjusted gold price development in US dollars, 1970 to 2013

* In Germany, this prediction was published in 1974. Wilkerson writes that he had the visions in April 1973.

In fact, after 1973, the price of gold rose somewhat at first. At the end of 1974 it was (adjusted
for inflation) $880. By the end of August 1976, it had dropped back down to $420. Anyone who
got in too late and was now selling could get around the loose half. But that certainly wasn't
the "astronomical height" Wilkerson was talking about. That didn't come until early 1980. Gold
climbed above $2,500, soon slipped again, but then stayed between about $1,500 and $2,000
for a few months, and slumped further in 1981, but was still well above the level for a number
of years, adjusted for inflation from April 1973.

Firstly, David Wilkerson had correctly foreseen the astronomical height of the price of gold,
secondly the brief persistence at the high level and thirdly the subsequent crash. Also, to David
Wilkerson's credit, it wasn't until the 1970s that the price of gold began to fluctuate so wildly.
The reason for this was that in 1971 the link between the US dollar and gold was abandoned
and then in 1973 the exchange rates against the dollar were also released. So far
everything is correctly foreseen. The only question is whether David Wilkerson stuck with his
gold price prediction in the 1980s or whether he (also) foresaw a fall in the price of gold in the
future.
In general, the seer believed that the great catastrophes would come much sooner.333 So he
was wrong about the timing. However, the scenarios he described fit much better into the
second decade of the third millennium and beyond. This has already been shown in the global
financial crisis, which David Wilkerson saw as a starting point in Europe. In memory of:

“Not only the American dollar will get into very big trouble, but also all other currencies of the world. I see Europe
gripped by total economic confusion, which then grips Japan, the United States, Canada, and shortly thereafter all
334
the other nations of the world."
David Wilkerson also saw that the USA was blamed for causing the world financial crisis, even
though Europe was the starting point. He saw a "collapse of large industrial societies", he saw
a "move to the countryside" in the USA, that is, a flight of city dwellers to the country with the
goal of self-sufficiency. He saw a great famine and a gigantic earthquake in the United States
and things like that. And right in the middle of all this he mentions the fall in the price of gold.
This automatically leads to the possibility of interpretation that he has foreseen a future fall in
gold prices.

But even if the price of gold falls in the future, it can by no means be about a permanent fall in
the price of gold. It would be possible for the price of gold to fall so far for a certain period that
the gold could only be sold at great losses in the crisis before the war broke out.

In any case, David Wilkerson's gold price forecast for the period from 1973 to 1981 is an
indication of the authenticity of his visions and their precognitive quality.

If David Wilkerson writes further:

The fluctuating value of these precious metals will become part of the bigger picture of the economic confusion
gripping the world.

... so we have to concede to the deceased clergyman from the USA that he is right. Because
according to the usual rules of economics, we should have had a much higher gold price for
a long time, after all, the national debt in the western world is increasing, and so are the global
economic risks. The price of gold should actually react to this. But he doesn't do it. That fits
with the bigger picture of the economic mess Wilkerson is talking about.

To put it simply, a common explanation for the strange and confusing gold price remaining at
what is actually far too low a level is that the world is being lied to and the gold price is being
manipulated using various tricks, e.g. with the fact that only a small part of the gold trade takes
place physically, i.e. in bars and coins, and the actual price formation takes place via gold-
based securities, which in reality are not (or no longer) based on gold. Seen in this way, the
market is not flooded with real gold at all, but only with papers that merely simulate an
oversupply of gold. This is similar to what happened in the US housing market. The famous
aerial number! The real purpose of the scam - according to the usual interpretation - is to mask
global inflation, for which the true price of gold (which is said to be as high as US$5,000 an
ounce) is the measure. To put it simply: the price of gold is being manipulated down so that
the world does not see how messed up the world economy is, a finding that could in turn
trigger an economic crash.

According to this interpretation, the gold price manipulation plays a central role in a gigantic
worldwide fraud manoeuvre. And I personally have to admit that David Wilkerson's prediction
sounds to me a little like he saw exactly that. The word confusion can be interpreted in two
directions: Either things are actually so complicated due to natural circumstances that it takes
a certain amount of time to see through them. Or they're deliberately complicated so that some
people can snag big bucks while others are still guessing or believing everything is fine.
 Swarms of Drones from the South

This chapter is about showing once again how clearly some of the "old" seers foresaw the
events around 2010 and how outrageous, even ludicrous, the New Age claim is that the "old"
seers saw a future that is now »invalid« or no longer possible.

I have already explained that Buchela, for example, foresaw the euro crisis and therefore
correctly saw the period around 2010. This chapter is not about the economy, but about the
military-technological area.

Around the same time as the upheaval in Eastern Europe and German reunification, more and
more books from Anglo-Saxon countries appeared in the German book trade, with prophecies
that can be summed up under the term New Age. As the name suggests, these prophecies
conveyed the idea of a new age now dawning.

In the New Age, however, not only is a new intellectual epoch associated with the new age,
but also a fundamental break with the past. This new age is not only perceived in the New Age
as a new epoch within a natural succession of time periods - like summer following spring -
but is believed to be a fundamental break with or eruption based on a previous continuity that
has existed for centuries or even millennia. This belief finds a well-known analogy in the term
"end of history," which goes back to the title of a book by the American political scientist
Francis Fukuyama. His book The End of History and the Last Man was published in 1992, at
about the height of hopes based on the peaceful upheaval in Eastern Europe. The USSR was
dissolved on December 26, 1991. The "end of history" meant, so to speak, the drying up and
dying out of decisive forces and energies that have determined human history for thousands
of years and, among other things, also caused wars.

The pre-New Age era was and is viewed by many New Age believers not only as old, but
rather outdated, outdated, and fundamentally wrong. And this way of looking at things can
also be seen in other areas of society, e.g. For example, when leading western politicians
accuse Putin and Russia of pursuing interests »like they did in the last century«.

For traditional European prophecy, this meant that the New Age saw it not only as "invalid,"
but actually as one of the main representatives of belief in the "old order." In fact, in some
areas one can speak of a real ideological-worldview contrast between New Age and old
prophecy, and quite a few New Age believers actually behave accordingly.
Logically, the focus of New Age rejection of ancient prophecy is all ancient World War III
prophecy, since nothing would reduce the belief in a "collective leap of consciousness" and
"harmonious transition" to absurdity like this war. Not only are World War III prophecies utterly
incompatible with a belief that "mankind has finally learned from their mistakes," but the
ancient prophecies threaten the very essence of New Age belief.
 Fig. 46: X-47B drones

And not only that. Were there actually to be a world war, the contrast with the New Age vision
of the future would be so blatant and downright shocking that the leading public figures of the
New Age are at least open to accusations of irresponsible error, if not outright fraud see - even
if the latter were unjustified. Either way, New Age circles would feel like they had been misled
and deceived for years. Such a process of disillusionment has been observed to some extent
since early 2013, when the promises surrounding the Mayan calendar and December 2012 all
but evaporated.
Of course, Mikhail Gorbachev, the upheaval in Eastern Europe and German reunification
offered themselves as initially quite obvious and actually tempting inspiration for the belief in
the dawn of a completely new age. From the mid/late 1980s one could actually hope - and I
did that at the time, too - that mankind and above all "the white man", the Europeans and
Americans, had learned a very important lesson. The turning point in the East was seen by
many as proof that mankind had actually learned from the mistakes of the past and, so to
speak, collectively broke out of the tunnel of providence, destiny and predestination.

However, it was overlooked, among other things, that this upheaval in the East had already
started in 1949, e.g. B. was foreseen by the Bavarian seer Alois Irlmaier. This was perfectly
documented and is still easily verifiable today. Here is the relevant passage:

Alois Irlmaier (1949, Bavaria):

Over there in the east there's a big change, [...] It's not going that fast, and it's going to be preceded by all kinds of
fights, but it's coming. Anyone who ignores the cross has squandered [gambled away]. And Stalin doesn't want
anything to do with the cross. That's exactly how it was with us in Germany, as the 'superintendents' of our Lord let
it happen, then misfortune is bound to happen.336

However, despite this upheaval in the east, Alois Irlmaier foresaw a sudden attack by Russia
and saw Germany becoming a war zone north of the Danube and east of the Rhine.

The time when mankind allegedly broke out of the tunnel of providence according to the New
Age conception is dated differently within the New Age. I just want to mention Drunvalo
Melchizedek, who gives the date 1972, as an example. Drunvalo Melchizedek (b. 1941) is
now considered by many New Age adherents to be the "leading teacher" of mankind's spiritual
development and enjoys some celebrity status. He is the author of a number of books, of which
"The Flower of Life" is certainly the best known.

There may be other dates here and there in the New Age, and other sources with varying
degrees of credibility. However, none of this changes the fact that within traditional European
prophecy there are - and this can be proven - sufficient predictions relating to concrete events
that only came true after the years 2000 and 2010 and have practically come true up to the
present.

And even if there is still a certain amount of room for interpretation in the predictions of the old
prophecy, their agreement with events and processes from the last few years (2nd decade in
the 3rd millennium) in Europe is undoubtedly so great that it doesn't take much instinct to to
have a fair amount of scepticism about the New Age judgement of ancient prophecy.

* In individual cases, the upheaval in Eastern Europe was also foreseen by other clairvoyants or fortune
tellers. As far as I know, these things were not documented early enough or only published after 1990/1991.

** The Flower of Life was published in 2000. On January 9, 2015, this book was ranked 8448 in the Amazon
sales ranking, which 15 years after its publication (the German edition) is quite extraordinary. This shows
D. Melchizedek's notoriety and popularity.

However, the New Age also deserves indulgence in its judgement of ancient prophecy on one
point! Because it is a fact that very many of the "old" seers were wrong with their dates. It is in
the nature of clairvoyant vision, mostly optical, that it is infinitely easier to see what is
happening than when. I have already given the example of a video camera without a date
display.

Before I now slowly swing into the prophesied combat drone missions, I want to point out again
that nobody - myself included - knows what the future will bring! Even if traditional European
prophecy has been correct up to now, that could change tomorrow. Only two things are needed
to recognize this: knowledge about the concrete predictions of the old prophecy and full
attention with regard to what is really happening in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Europe
and the world.

Before I start with the stealth combat drones, I would like to briefly deal with an innocuous
prophecy that is also aimed pretty precisely at the year 2010 and the years after. It is about
the prediction of - believe it or not - smartphones; read in a book from 1959. The corresponding
prophecy is attributed to a 17th century seer, the seer of Prague. This seer is said to have
said about the people:
337
I see them holding a little angular thing in their hands that tells them everything they want to know."

According to what the Allgäu Irlmaier witness assured me, Alois Irlmaier also foresaw
smartphones and cell phones in the early 1950s. According to this witness, he also foresaw
tablet PCs and credit card payments in the supermarket.338

But at this point the prediction of the seer of Prague, published in 1959, suffices perfectly.

So it's not entirely fair, to say the least, to suggest that the ancient seers were completely
wrong. smartphones e.g. B. are a fairly comprehensive picture of the worldwide technological
development of the last decades. Smartphones presuppose an Internet, which in turn implies
a previous worldwide development and application of computers, LCD displays, etc. for many
years.

Of course, one could now claim that humanity has just taken the same technological path, but
has developed spiritually in a completely different way. But perhaps this is nothing more than
a hastily prepared protective claim in defence of one's own belief system, which is now under
threat.

Now we come to the stealth combat drones. These are the perfect symbol for a world that,
despite all scientific advances and all technical sophistication, does not find its way to peace.
Alois Irlmaier provides several clear references to such combat drones. And that is
demonstrably already from 1949, probably even at the end of 1945!

The background to this prediction and my interpretation of it with the combat drones (see
below) are visions of Alois Irlmaier, which seem to have impressed him so much that he
apparently mentioned them almost every time he was questioned in more detail. That is why
there are several newspaper articles on the subject from 1949 and 1950, in which Alois Irlmaier
comments on the matter.

The Scenario

Irlmaier saw that immediately after the Russian attack in Central Europe, gigantic swarms of
"aircraft" were flying out of the Arab region over the Mediterranean towards the Alps and then
towards the Baltic Sea. Starting from Prague, the "planes" would drop a yellow or greenish-
yellow toxic dust in the form of a line or streak, making it impossible for the Russians to route
supplies between Prague and the Baltic Sea for the Red Army to push further west. There is
some ambiguity in the sources as to whether this poison strip runs north or north-west. But
purely in terms of sources, the northern route from Prague to the Baltic Sea predominates.

In 1955 - when Irlmaier was still alive - the following text was published:
Now I see the earth in front of me as a sphere on which stand out the lines of the aeroplanes, which now fly up
from the sand like flocks of white doves. The Russians run along in their three [attacking] wedges, they don't stop
anywhere, day and night they run to the Ruhr area, where there are many stoves and chimneys.
But then the white doves come and suddenly it rains yellow from the sky. It will be a clear night when they start
throwing. The tanks are still rolling, but the drivers are already dead. Where it falls, nothing lives anymore, no
human, no cattle, no tree, no grass, it will wither and turn black. The houses are still standing. I don't know what
that is and I can't say. It's a long line. Whoever crosses it dies. From Prague it goes up to the big water at a bay.
Everything is gone in this line. [...] After that I see that no one can get over it anymore. Those who are here can't
go back, the Drents can't cross over. Then everything collapses at the Herenteren. Nobody comes back: 339

The term “Yellow Line” has become established for the poisoned zone north of Prague. As a
result of the Yellow Line barrier, the Russian attack is supposed to collapse. Irlmaier thus
describes a strategic use of weapons by the West, which breaks the backbone of the Russian
army. The seer obviously has the meaning of this
combat use recognized and therefore probably mentioned him again and again. However -
and this will come as no surprise - he did not speak of "drones".
Other seers also seem to have foreseen the event, but not nearly as detailed as Alois Irlmaier.
Essentially, the other sources only speak of a yellow or green-yellow cloud in roughly the same
area as Irlmaier. In addition, in recent years I have received letters from some readers about
visions or (supposed) real dreams in which it is particularly striking that the colour of the dust
cloud or fog is described very uniformly: green-yellow or green-yellow-ochre.340

The first indication that these "aircraft" swarms from the Arab region are drones is found in the
number of aircraft. Alois Irlmaier says twice that there are so many that he cannot count them.
Once it says »10000«. Another time it is said that there are so many that (apparently over
south-eastern Bavaria) the sky is (slightly) darkening.

In short: According to the descriptions, there are so many aircraft that the USA would have to
lack the fighter pilots! According to figures available on the Internet, the US Air Force had
around 5,700 aircraft in all in 2007. And since the training of fighter pilots is quite lengthy and
no one will complete this training if they fear that they will later be sitting on the "reserve bench"
for most of their time, the number of army pilots should be very similar to that of military aircraft.

But the US military could not possibly withdraw thousands of pilots from anywhere, because
in a modern war you absolutely cannot do without a powerful air force. And if pilots were
specially trained for this purpose, they would soon realise that their chances of surviving this
mission are well below 50 percent.

The next indication of a war scenario that does not fit into Irlmaier's lifetime (d. 1959) or even
into the time of the Cold War (until 1990) is the mass deployment of aircraft from the Africa-
Arabia region. Until World War II, the US did not have a single military base in North Africa
and the Middle East. The actual military involvement of the USA in the Near and Middle East
only began after 1979, when the Islamic Revolution broke out in Iran and Iran broke away from
the USA as a base of influence in the region.
From today's point of view, however, since the USA massively expanded its military presence
in the region from around 1991' and all the more after September 11, 2001, when the USA
declared the worldwide "war on terror", the mass deployment of American combat drones from
the fit perfectly into the picture in the Arabian region.

* Or. as early as 1987, when it became apparent in the first Gulf War (Iraq against Iran) that Iran could not
be permanently weakened by the Iraqi army.

In any case, Irlmaier saw a combat scenario that doesn't fit into the post-war period at all and
basically only makes sense in the period after September 11, 2001. And that's exactly what
most people instinctively feel when they hear about the aircraft squadrons from the far south
for the first time: That doesn't fit Irlmaier's time at all!

But there are also indications that explicitly point to drones, and thus clearly speak for a
scenario after the turn of the millennium: In the courier text by Alois Irlmaier - according to the
information from October 1945 - there is an indication that these "aircraft" fly without a pilot:

The ground in W. Germany was burned 10 meters deep by a force. From the sands of the deserts of Africa the
342
great birds rise with eggs of death without men.

The "land in West Germany" is probably not West German territory, but rather the strip of land
in East Germany between Prague and the Baltic Sea. This can be seen in later publications
from the years from 1949 onwards. In my book Alois Irlmaier - a man says what he sees, I
worked out the course of the yellow line in detail.

The above quote with the death eggs is said to be from the 1945 original. Indeed, the entire
text of this prophecy text indicates that Irlmaier had not really understood one or the other
aspect of his visions at this early point in time. In any case, the ten meters deep burned
Earth is a clear indication of the strategic use of chemical weapons between Prague and the
Baltic Sea, cutting off Russian supplies. This is clear from other Irlmaier texts: The warfare
agent should be so strong that even the worms in the ground die and you can't enter the whole
zone at all for about a year.343

The "big birds from the sands of the African desert" mentioned immediately after the
chemically burnt earth are the flying machines that drop this warfare agent with the "death
eggs." And of course there are no men in these »death eggs«. Rather, there is apparently just
a comma missing after the death eggs:
...raise the great birds, with death-eggs, [but] without men.
The circumstances under which these predictions were recorded in October 1945 remain
unclear to this day. The only thing that seems certain is that it was not Irlmaier himself who
wrote this down, since there are no personal notes of his visions. So someone else wrote it
down, and apparently a few subtleties got mixed up or missed out.

Irlmaier often used the term »birds« for aeroplanes or flying machines.344
“Birds” or planes without men are what we call drones today.
In connection with Irlmaier's »Birds«, my subsequent research further confirmed the thesis
that Irlmaier meant drones: In the spring of 2014, as already mentioned, I interviewed the old
man south of Munich who, by his own admission, was ten years old was friends with Alois
Irlmaier and whose sincerity neither I nor other researchers have any doubts about. When I
interviewed this man in 2014, he did not yet know my interpretation with the drones (and
therefore not my Irlmaier biography either). More importantly, during the interview I basically
just let him talk and asked a few questions. It wasn't really an interview at all. When the former
Irlmaier friend spoke about the use of aircraft from the Arab region and the yellow line, he
remembered that Irlmaier emphasised that they were "birds - NOT aeroplanes".

Apparently Irlmaier couldn't find a word for what he saw (yes, how?). But it must also be taken
into account that at the time no one wanted to believe him that he saw planes without a pilot.
Clairvoyants have had similar problems over the centuries: Sometimes what they saw was so
unimaginable and so unbelievable for their contemporaries that the seers resorted to
completely crazy paraphrases or simply kept it a secret so as not to jeopardise their overall
credibility .

So if Irlmaier explicitly distinguished between airplanes and "birds" (which transport bombs
from Africa to Central Europe), one can rule out that he was habitually saying birds instead of
airplanes; which of course would otherwise be an idiotic argument. After all, people in
Southeast Bavaria saw enough aeroplanes during the Second World War and knew what an
aeroplane was. Alois Irlmaier also foresaw the bombing raids on Rosenheim, Bad Reichenhall
and Freilassing, and by the way, his warnings probably saved the lives of several dozen
people.

In addition, Irlmaier's old friend has shared a number of experiences with me described with
Alois Irlmaier, and insider knowledge came to light several times, so from my point of view
there is absolutely no doubt about the sincerity of this witness. However - and this could be
criticised - the witness did not ask what Irlmaier meant exactly by "birds"; be it out of respect
because the witness was 40 years younger, or whatever. In any case, Irlmaier clarified that
there were no aeroplanes (in the usual sense) are. And that Irlmaier couldn't possibly mean
real birds is also clear, after all he described their bombs with the poison dust in more detail
elsewhere: They are supposed to be boxes with a side length of 25 x 25 cm 345 , although of
course one could criticize that eggs don’t look like that. So were the bombs somewhere
between an egg and a box?

On the right you can see an American combat drone with stealth technology or with design
features that show that the drone cannot be detected or can hardly be detected by enemy
radar. This is most evident in the missing tailplane.

Such drones have been developed by the USA for a few years. The X-47B type above now
has the range and payload to make it from Africa to the Baltic Sea. According to the information
available on the Internet, the predecessor type X-47A had its maiden flight in 2003. The
successor type, the X-47B, had its first »rollout« in 2008. The test phase, which was planned
to last three years, should have been completed by now. There is some footage on YouTube
from 2013 showing an X-47B drone taking off and landing on an aircraft carrier.
 Fig. 47: US X-47B stealth combat drone

According to Wikipedia, the X-47B has an operational radius of 2,770 kilometres (roughly the
distance from North Africa to the Baltic Sea) and a payload of around 2,000 kg. However, so
far there are said to be only individual prototypes for testing purposes. The X-47B is relatively
small, barely 40 feet long and 30 feet wide with the wings angled. Should mass production
start, this should of course be done in secrecy. The development of the atomic bomb during
World War II, in which more than 100,000 people were involved at times, proves that the USA
is able to keep extensive industrial projects secret.

In the case of the yellow line, a kind of disposable drone that is made solely for this purpose
would of course also suffice. This would save a lot of technology, for example the retractable
landing gear when the drones are shot down by catapults. The drones would probably be
controlled by a kind of self-organising swarm control, i.e. without a pilot in the USA on a joystick
and screen. With a few 1000 copies, not every defence attempt by the Russian air defence
would have to be avoided. It would be crucial that some of the drones reach their destination.
That is exactly the idea of such a mass deployment: so many combat machines are sent out
that enough will surely get through. For comparison, a single Russian bioweapons bomber
from the 1990s had the ability to smoke 5,000 square kilometers (5,000!) according to a local
expert. Although bioweapons cannot be equated 1:1 with chemical weapons, the Russians'
bioweapons were released in powder form (dust) as in Irlmaier's description of the yellow line.

The whole chapter with the drones from my Irlmaier book published in 2009 has been freely
available on the internet since 2009! And since July 2014 there has also been a corresponding
excerpt from a DVD about Alois Irlmaier on YouTube, which I produced together with Schild-
Verlag. The YouTube film 347 has now (February 2015) been clicked over 180,000 times. Not
least because of this, one can assume that the Russian military has known about this type of
weapon for a long time and has long thought about appropriate countermeasures. The extent
to which appropriate measures have already been implemented remains entirely speculative,
of course. And, of course, the USA will have also considered how to proceed against Russian
countermeasures. All in all, this means that this mass deployment of stealth drones must be
understood as part of a whole system of weapon systems, the interactions and effectiveness
of which ordinary people can only speculate fruitlessly.

Of course, the prediction with the (presumed) drones cannot be converted directly into a date
forecast for the outbreak of the Third World War, after all one does not know whether mass
production has already started and how world politics will develop. Basically, however, the
mass use of drones - and explicitly also of stealth drones - is now becoming more and more
public awareness. At the end of April 2014, the German Info-TV channel phoenix-tv broadcast
a documentary about the latest options for using drones in war; Title: »Drones and Co«. It
featured footage of eight X-47B drones flying in a formation about 100 meters long,
simultaneously firing missiles at a target. As for the speaker:
Autonomous drone swarms could soon go to war. Once programmed, they independently search for their target
and destroy it.

It is therefore to be considered that this weapons technology will become fully operational in
the current decade, if it is not already so. This would apply to the USA, but China and France
are also in the process of developing stealth combat drones. The military technological trend
is clearly in this direction.

In short: Alois Irlmaier's statements about the yellow line hardly leave any room for
interpretation. Alois Irlmaier not only foresaw a war with Russia in Europe, and according to
Irlmaier this war would not only have to come after the collapse of the USSR, but according to
Irlmaier's visions this war could also be dated from around 2010 onwards.

In addition, there are also references to this combat mission in other prophecies and that
people apparently living today have corresponding premonitions and dreams. If you are
interested in further details, you will find further information in my book Prophecies, Old News
in New Times (2001).

So it will be interesting to see if and when the New Age believers in the German-speaking
world will begin to take off their blinders and reconsider their judgement in the face of traditional
European prophecy. A revision seems to be urgently needed.

Finally, on the subject of drones, a highly mysterious prediction by the other well-known
Bavarian clairvoyant, namely Mühlhiasl (ca. 1820), should be mentioned. He lived in the
Bavarian Forest, and according to Irlmaier's information, the drone swarms would also have
to fly over this area. It is possible that Mühlhiasl's following prediction also refers to these
drones or at least to a B2 stealth bomber that is very similar in shape to the X-47B.
 Fig. 48: X-47B drone

Fig. 49: Hi-Homber

As you will see, Mühlhiasl's prediction requires interpretation. But I still want to mention it
because it has its own charm. There it says:
Then the devil will ride over the mountains without feet and without a head. He will have all colours and be like
glass.348
A wonderful riddle, isn't it? My interpretation goes as follows: Ride over the mountains means
fly over the mountains. The mountains in the Bavarian Forest are mostly forested. Riding
through these woods would be pointless. The devil could also turn into a wild cat that nobody
would ever see.
If the devil then had neither head nor feet, Mühlhiasl was apparently able to distinguish
between up and down, or front and back. Above and below, or in front and behind, the seer
should have deduced the direction of flight. Without a head and feet, one can then understand
this as a reference to a very unusual, actually anti-natural, devilish form. This is exactly the
impression given by the X-47B drones and the B2 bomber. Compared to common aeroplane
designs, they lack the nose where the cockpit is usually located. And it's missing a tailplane.
Traditional aeroplanes with main and tail wings are structurally much more reminiscent of birds
with wings and tails". "Has all colors and is like glass" can be interpreted as meaning that you
can see the devil on the one hand, but on the other hand you can't This in turn corresponds
to stealth technology, the human eye can see the stealth bomber or stealth drone, but not the
radar.
* Aeroplanes with a "head" but without "feet" have been around for a long time: with delta wing shapes.
Certainly at this point the ice for the interpretation is thinning, because the X-47B and B2 are
of course not brightly painted, and in the case of a X-47B mass deployment, Mühlhiasl
should have spoken of a multitude of devils.

My personal impression, however, is that Mühlhiasl saw something whose meaning he

understood intuitively, but which he was only able to describe very insufficiently given the
gaps in his knowledge at the time. My interpretation of "has all colours and is like glass" =
stealth technology may be debatable. On the other hand, Mühlhiasl could have simply said
that the thing looks like colored glass. But he didn't do that. In this respect, »has all the
colours and is like glass« sounds like a linguistic approximation of something that was
ultimately something else.

But you can interpret that however you want. Mühlhiasl's devil without head and feet is just a
side detail.

The Fall of Babylon

Fig. 50: South tip of Manhattan

In 1980, Wolfgang Johannes Bekh published the visions of an Austrian farmer from the
Waldviertel in northern Austria. This farmer had a series of visions related to World War III,
mainly in the years 1959/1960, some of which were very graphic and full of detail. In one of
these detailed visions, the farmer saw the atomic destruction of the southern tip of Manhattan.
The farmer from the Waldviertel made contact with W. J. Bekh in 1976 and is now known as
the »Waldviertel«. In recent years he has repeatedly had contact with one or the other
prophecy researchers and with people who are very interested in the subject of prophecy. I,
too, met the man once and consider him credible as well.

According to Waldviertler, the nuclear attack on the southern tip of Manhattan would have to
take place in peacetime, i.e. before the Russian attack. The text of the vision speaks of “early
summer” weather at the same time in Austria, i.e. usually May/June, but maybe also April/May
(early spring in the war year!). The Waldviertler also mentions a conflict in the Balkans around
this time. Where in the Balkans remains unclear.

Waldviertier's vision of southern Manhattan's demise fits quite well with what other sources
predict for the last few months before the outbreak of war. A nuclear attack on New York in
May-June would also go well with a then rapidly brewing Middle East war in June-July.

On the other hand, the source situation would be a bit sparse if one only had this one version
of the Waldviertel for the destruction of Manhattan and there were no other clairvoyants who
foresaw this event. After all, New York is not just any city, it was the city of cities for a long
time and still has a lot of that charisma today. It would be odd if one Austrian farmer predicted
the destruction of southern Manhattan in 1959 and no one else. So are there any other
sources? However! Remarkably, in the Bible's Apocalypse of John, there is a vision describing
the destruction of a great city in just one day. This city (of course, "Babylon") is a city of global
appeal, which is - and it is clearly said - important for commerce, even important for world
commerce. Likewise, this city is (still) destroyed in peacetime, and it seems to be a port city. I
will come back to that passage in the Book of Revelation below.

Should the nuclear attack on Manhattan actually take place, one can safely assume that the
USA will start looking for a culprit like a stricken tarantula. The entire American people would
immediately flock to the President. And he would have to step in front of the microphones
within a few hours. And what he then says will not be doubted in the USA. When it comes to
the combination of the attack and Manhattan, the term “conspiracy theory” will inevitably come
to mind for countless readers. The question of who planned this attack would be a topic in
itself. But not for this book.

Here are the most important parts of the Waldviertler for the scenario:
In the destruction of New York I saw [...] details that one could never see with the naked eye. [...] I saw this city in
every detail. Then a dark object fell from above on a constantly curving path.
I stared spellbound at this body until it shattered. At first it was shreds, then these too dissolved. At that moment I
still didn't understand what had happened.
The first explosive device detonated a few houses behind a larger house standing broadside on the sea, the others
[detonators] south of it, seen from the sea.
The houses did not fall over or collapse, but were mostly pushed away from the source of the explosion as a whole,
only slightly tilting. They literally crushed each other from below. From the front it seemed as if they were sinking
into the ground as they approached.349

The seer then visited the author Bekh personally. W.J. Bekh recalled:
He took the wax model of a marzipan mould that was standing on my [...] cupboard and demonstrated, as if this
vertical body were a skyscraper, how the buildings of Manhattan are crushed from below and become smaller and
350
smaller until they collapse, and the area where the famous skyline rose was flat ground again.
In the vision, the seer then changes perspective, goes to Austria in spirit and perceives
events on the same day in his hometown:
Just as I was about to go out to the farm for a bite to eat, as usual, this message came on the radio for the first
time. That could be, as I thought possible, around lunchtime [local time]. But if you consider that it gets light very
early in early summer, that could also be in the morning hours. I couldn't see the effects of the war on us.
Consequently, this event must occur much earlier than previously assumed. Judging by the speeches, it would
have to be a feat by more psychopathic opponents.351

Again W.J. Bekh:

But he not only saw the fall of New York, he saw himself standing with other villagers and commenting on the
event. He heard it said that this was the act of revenge by terrorists. Of course, what the Americans did wasn't
nice. But to destroy an entire city because of this is decidedly going too far! That's what people talked about.
A limited conflict in the Balkans and the destruction of New York, that is the beginning of the armed conflicts,
without significant effects on Central Europe.352

As I said, the visions were published in 1980, decades before any human thought of a "war
on terror." It is also interesting that the attack on New York is interpreted by the villagers as a
terrorist response to previous US military action. "Military action" is of course an interpretation,
but from the context it is actually clear that the USA must have killed too many people in one
fell swoop somewhere beforehand (... what the Americans would have done wasn't nice...).
And presumably this was also just a reaction on the part of the USA to another previous act
of violence.

The fact that the Austrian villagers considered the destruction of an “entire” town “definitely
too far” sounds almost as if the destruction of two blocks was okay and proportionate for them.
From this it can be concluded that the previous military action by the USA must have claimed
many lives in one fell swoop.

It's amazing how atmospherically close this vision of 1980 or 1959" is to today's conditions:
The USA is not only in an endless "anti-terrorist fight" and is ready to kill many people in the
process, but many Europeans are now missing also the understanding of this foreign policy of
the USA All this seems to be reflected in the vision from an Austrian village published 35 years
ago.

The "limited conflict in the Balkans" could theoretically mean the Turkish-Greek war, although
this war would then probably have broken out about two months before the great war. I think
that's out of the question. And it would also contradict the statements of the Greek monk
Phillipas (see page 141), who also describes this Balkan war much more precisely and would
clearly be preferable to the Waldviertel on this point. After all, the Waldviertier says nothing
more about the Balkan war than that it is limited and takes place somewhat at the same time
as the attack on New York. So the Waldviertler may be referring to future battles related to
Serbia. But as far as I know, this cannot be sufficiently substantiated by other sources.

This is an ambiguous point in European prophecy. Every now and then you just have to live
with certain ambiguities because the source base doesn't give enough.

Whether the opinions of the villagers that the destruction of southern Manhattan was a terrorist
attack hits the core of the truth can then also be doubted. At least if you take the description
of the Waldviertel as a basis. This describes one or more ballistic missiles. Even if terrorists
were to succeed in stealing such weapons, they would need a suitable launching device, they
would have to crack security codes in the missiles' software, they would need to know how to
reprogram the missiles, etc. Only specialists can do something like that, normal terrorists are
out of the question.

* First published in 1980, the visions are said to date mainly from 1959/1960.

So there must be a state behind it. A country that has nuclear weapons. Who exactly? That
would be the one trillion dollar question.

A rather fatal aspect of the whole affair would of course also be that the USA has been waging
its "war on terror" since 2001, setting death and devil in motion and spending billions of US
dollars. Such an attack on Manhattan would make the entire world aware of the total failure of
the US anti-terrorist policy.

Not only would a city or part of a city be destroyed in the attack, the reputation of the "sole
world power" USA would suffer an irreparable blow throughout the world. And the citizens of
the USA would recognize without big words that a completely new era has now begun for
them. It would be clear to them that such acts of violence cannot be prevented with the
previous »war on terror«. Psychologically, US citizens thus came very close to a point where
their President could ask them:
Do you want total war?

A truly frightening scenario. In any case, Americans would have to decide between shifting
gears on the highway to nowhere, or jumping straight onto the hard shoulder to find a better
destination on their travel map.

How would the US react then? If European prophecy is to be believed, the US would not blame
the Russians for this attack. Because if the US and Russia got into conflict over the attack in
Manhattan, everything else would happen very quickly and become very massive. The United
States could not, on the spur of the moment, bomb a few Russian cities for the "satisfaction"
of the American TV viewer before they had worked out a proper strategy. A Russian surprise
attack a few months later would then no longer fit into the picture at all. The prophesied peace
movement would also no longer fit into the picture. Who would still believe in peace when the
US President announces on all television channels that Russia has nuclear-erased the
southern tip of Manhattan? Consequently, the US would have to come up with another culprit.
only who? North korea? Iran?

If there was only the Waldviertel vision for the nuclear attack on New York, I would still be
sceptical. I've met the man personally and think he's credible, but you never know.

But there is still this passage from the Bible from the Revelation of John (18; 8 - 18) with the
telling title »The Fall of Babylon«.

The city of "Babylon" is destroyed there in a single day. And this apparently still happens in
peacetime. Destruction in just one day sounds like an atomic bomb. Likewise, the "Babylon"
from the Apocalypse of St. John lies by the sea, and the merchants on their ships on the sea
in front of the city see Babylon burning. So it can't be early Babylon, because that was about
400 kilometres inland.

The Bible goes on to say that the merchants of the world wept for the city. On the one hand,
this means that it must be at least a large trading city, if not a large world trading city. On the
other hand, it is clear that business must still be running reasonably normally up to this point
in time. There can be no third world war at this point in time.

Whether "Babylon" means New York, London, Shanghai or another world trading city is
debatable. However, I do not believe that the Bible is about a Chinese city. It must already be
a major commercial city in the Christian-Jewish world. And there are not many cities with the
global appeal of New York. At best London. But London doesn't measure up to New York
either, simply because Britain is a mere shadow of its former greatness.

According to the Bible, the only destruction of Babylon is not over yet. Because the destruction
of Babylon should result in trade collapsing altogether. All of this fits very well with New York
City. Read for yourself:

The fall of Babylon

Therefore her plagues will come in one day, death, suffering and famine, and she will be burned up with fire [...]
And they will weep and mourn the kings of the earth, who have committed whoredom and rioted with her, when
they see the smoke from her fire in which she is burning.
They will stand afar off for fear of their torment and say, "Alas, alas, Babylon, great city, mighty city, in one hour
your judgement will come." And the merchants of the earth will weep and mourn for them, because their Goods no
one will buy anymore [...].
And all the masters of the ship, and all the helmsman, and the seafarers, and those who laboured at sea, stood
afar off and cried out when they saw the smoke from their burning...353

"The kings of the earth" who mourn Babylon are likely to be mostly at home at this point.
Nothing is said about the kings of the world being assembled within sight of Babylon. And if
so, it would be a very strange coincidence. In addition, one would then also have to mention
the reason for this meeting of the kings of the world within sight of New York.

So the kings of the world sat at home and wept and lamented. How on earth are they supposed
to see from home that Babylon is burning? ... Because it says so in the Bible: "The kings of
the earth [...] see [...] the smoke from their burning."

Like on TV? Do you think this is an exaggerated interpretation of this approximately 2,000-
year-old text? Not at all, after all, the Apocalypse of St. John also predicts a payment system
(Rev.13;16) in which every person without exception needs a "mark" on their hand or forehead
, in order to be able to buy and sell. If you don't want to deface people with this mark, it would
have to be invisible, and thus at least machine-readable. In addition, this mark would have to
be forgery-proof. This means that to create the original mark, a technology must be used,
which even professional forgers do not have. The thing about the mark on the hand or the
forehead is one of the most compelling and parapsychological most interesting predictions in
the whole Bible. This prediction points to a really very good clairvoyant who was involved in
the creation of the Apocalypse of John.
As for the shipmasters, helmsman and seafarers: The port of New York is the third largest port
in the USA in terms of cargo handling.

The vision of the Waldviertler and the fall of Babylon from the Apocalypse of John agree in so
many details that they could actually be the same event. Of course it is unusual nowadays to
interpret Scriptures from a parapsychological point of view. For many Christians this is much
too banal. But if you cut out all supernatural clairvoyant passages from the Bible, you will soon
have to say goodbye to the biblical prophets altogether. And then the Bible will soon be just
old paper.
Since New York City is not just any city, but the "city of all cities'' and a symbol of American
world power, there should have been other seers besides the Waldviertel and the seer from
the Apocalypse of St. John who foresaw the fall of the Big Apple. The very many prophecies
about the fate of Paris show that the downfall of a large, important city is foreseen by many
seers and that the majority of the corresponding seers also come from the country in which
this city is located. So what do American seers find about the fall of New York?

* According to research, the Apocalypse of St. John was written between the years 68 and 96 AD.

A very impressive vision can be found again in Veronica Lueken (-1974), whereby each
reader can decide for himself whether it is New York City:
I see a street now, it's a very big city, and people are pointing to the sky, they're terrified, they're running and
screaming. Mothers with their children in their arms run with many others out of the city into the countryside. [...]
Oh my goodness. Oooh, I look back, and as I look back, I see what looks like bodies, but I can't see them, because
they look... oooh, they look like they're burned, black from burning... oooh Now I see - something has been levelled.
It looks like it used to be a city, but it's flat and there's smoke and everything looks like it's collapsed like a house
of cards. I only see a desert now, nothing is there anymore, everything is quiet where the big city used to be -
nothing. - And Our Lady [the Virgin Mary] says: "Look, my child, out there, the sailors are crying... Sailors are
crying."
There are ships out on the water, on the sea, and I see something strange. I see men there, they're all holding their
hands in front of their faces and it looks like they're crying. And the men lament, and one says: "If only I could throw
the dust over my head in this once great city. O Babylon, thou great one, thou art fallen!' I can see the ships, they
are all turned across to the land, and the land is just as if utterly destroyed.354

Immediately before Veronica Lueken perceived the city, she saw "a frighteningly large ball"
"like a gigantic sun" in the sky. According to your choice of words, this would clearly be a
celestial body rather than an atomic bomb. However, such celestial bodies cannot suddenly
appear from one hour to the next. There would be a warning period of at least a few days.
Even if the celestial body were discovered very late because it comes out from behind the sun
and approaches at the speed of the solar wind (about 1.5 million kilometres per hour!), this
object would still need around four days* to reach earth. That would still be enough time to
calculate the trajectory and narrow down the threatened region at an early stage. Measured
against this, the fugitives appear far too surprised in Veronica Lueken's vision.
Also, this celestial body could not be the cause of the burned bodies, since it would have to
move far too quickly and far too far away to achieve such a heat effect. In addition, people
would have been warned about the heat, and people would have holed up in cellars,
underground garages, etc. And as a last argument: If it really were a large celestial body
coming so close to the earth, the sailors on the sea in front of the city would do all sorts of only
they would not mourn the city. Consequently, the seafarers are responding to an event that
essentially only affects the city but not the sea off the city. Here, too, an event may be
described that is limited to »Babylon«.
* Distance sun - earth = around 150000000 kilometres

However, the celestial body that the seer saw also appears in other visions. However, he
would not appear near Earth until about three months after the outbreak of war in Europe. If
you believe Veronica Lueken, this celestial body would come closest to Earth over North
America. A collision with the earth would be impossible. That would really be the end of the
world. But that is not predicted.

As far as other seers on the fate of New York are concerned, the American trance medium
Edgar Cayce (d. 1945) should definitely be mentioned. There is also a statement from this
about the fate of New York, but it is more about the more distant future, in which the east coast
of the USA partially sinks into the Atlantic ("Parts of today's east coast of New York, or the city of New
York itself , will mostly disappear.”)355

The last source on New York City is a prediction by Alois Irlmaier, which was published in
1961. The publisher Conrad Adlmaier, who knew Irlmaier personally, wrote:
Irlmaier also saw an influx of yellow people across Alaska to Canada and the US. But the masses are repelled. On
the other hand, Irlmaier claimed that a large city would be destroyed by rockets. Whether this meant New York, he
did not want to answer this question and remained very reserved.356

If the reader assumes that the publisher Conrad Adlmaier phrased New York so cautiously
because in 1961 he still believed he had to be considerate of the American occupation forces
in Bavaria, he could be right.

In any case, it should be a big city in North America, because immediately before that there is
talk of Alaska, Canada and the USA. European cities such as London, Paris and Prague are
also excluded because Irlmaier has made clear enough statements about their fate in other
places. And nowhere is there talk of missiles. In addition, the destruction of just one city with
rockets speaks against an attack by Russia, because this would then immediately attack a
whole series of cities and other targets (missile silos) in the USA with rockets. Ergo: Alois
Irlmaier's statement points more to a terrorist attack.

Should there actually be a destruction of New York or Manhattan in times of peace in the form
described by the Waldviertler and the Bible (and probably also by V. Lueken), every person
on the planet would probably feel that things are now finally and completely gone and have
come under control. A clearer sign could hardly be imagined.

In terms of omens and precautions, the attack on New York itself would of course not be that
interesting, but rather what provokes it - if you believe the Waldviertler - and precedes it. Here
is the obvious chain of events:

1. Around April of the war year, the USA felt provoked by a power that tended towards
terrorism, but not by Russia.

2. Then the USA strikes militarily in a form that is seen as an overreaction in Europe.
So, all of a sudden, "too many" people are dying, and the media is reporting on it.
 3. Then follows the attack in New York with simultaneous early summer weather in
Austria. Normally this would be around May. In view of the prophesied early and beautiful
spring in the war year, this could also be around the middle/end of April. In addition, the attack
on New York City and the preceding military action by the USA must have happened so close
together that "normal" media consumers would have no doubts that these things were
connected.

It should be noted that while several sources have predicted, or appear to predict, the
destruction of New York and southern Manhattan, the matter of the preceding US military
action goes back solely to Waldviertler. However, since both the Waldviertier and the Bible
still predict this destruction in peacetime and no direct reference to a war with Russia can be
seen, there is actually a lot to be said for a terrorist context in the immediate run-up.

Addendum

After September 11, 2001, there was some confusion among those who knew the vision of
the forest animal. It was suspected that Waldviertler had foreseen September 11, 2001. The
Tyrolean pastor Josef Stocker, who also publishes on the subject of prophecy, informed me
by email at the time that he had phoned the Waldviertler and that he had not foreseen 9/11,
but a later event.

The Great California Earthquake

There are a number of predictions about a devastating earthquake in California, and

corresponding prophecies have sometimes found wide distribution, certainly also because an
earthquake in California is of great interest in the USA. In fact, geologists are also expecting
a super earthquake in California ("The Big One"). But nobody knows when. This makes the
great earthquake in California or the "fall of California" an ideal field of activity for clairvoyants
- be they real or false.

However, from a European point of view and in terms of omens and precautions, this
earthquake would only be »helpful« if it happened before the war. If this were the case, one
could safely assume a massive shock for the global financial system. In California, gigantic
financial assets in the form of real estate would be destroyed, and the shock wave of the
earthquake would continue within a few minutes in the financial sector, on the stock
exchanges, with insurance companies and banks. The great earthquake in California would
have to occur either at the same time as the financial crash or after it. Certainly not much
earlier!

If one believes David Wilkerson, for example, that the great world financial crisis started in
Europe, then the earthquake in California would only have to occur after a euro crash and only
after the US had been infected by the financial crisis. The same applied to the attack on New
York. This, too, is only likely to take place after the euro crash, since the New York attack is
also likely to pull the world financial system into the abyss. It would therefore be obvious that
the earthquake would only take place after the euro crash and after the attack on New York.
If »California« took place before ''New York”, the Austrian villagers would probably have
expressed themselves differently about the fate of the USA at the Waldviertler (e.g.: »Oh God,
the USA again!«) and the seafarers in the Apocalypse of St Brand of New York not snapped
out of their business-as-usual mood. After all, the collapse of California would be a far greater
catastrophe than a nuclear attack on Manhattan. In short: The big earthquake in California
would not be such a good omen because, according to the currently known sources, it would
only come after the financial crash.

Edgar Cayce has a prediction that might help predict the great California earthquake:
If there is major activity from Mount Vesuvius or Mount Pelé, then the southern coast of California - and the area
between Salt Lake City and the southern parts of Nevada - can be expected to be inundated by earthquakes within
the next three months.357

"Major" volcanic activity is, of course, a matter of interpretation. If it goes on to say "Vesuvius
or Mont Pelé" (a volcano on the Caribbean island of Martinique), things get even more
confusing. Is it really only one of the two volcanoes or a timely eruption of both volcanoes that
is meant?

After all, Mont Pelé is a stratovolcano with viscous, viscous magma that tends to form plugs
and clog the vent, which then often becomes explosive in the event of an eruption. In the case
of Mont Pelé, "major activity" should mean a massive eruption. The volcano has been inactive
since 1932. Vesuvius last erupted in 1944.

Alois Irlmaier also made a statement from 1955 that could refer to the earthquake in
California. But that is purely speculative, since there is no location information here:
The mountains have snow above, but below it is aper [autumn country?]. It looks yellow. I see an earthquake
ahead. The Korean War is over [this statement is from December 7, 1952. D.V. (the Korean War ended in 1953)]358

A statement by Irlmaier, recorded in 2002 by Bernhard Bouvier, fits in with this:

At the time, Irlmaier was a frequent guest of the G. family on Lake Chiemsee. The then young G. reported that
Irlmaier had said that there would be a worldwide earthquake "before".
The USA is particularly affected. With us, the earthquakes would be strongest along the Rhine Graben. "Here" (i.e.
in Bavaria) the tremors can also be felt.
There would still be aftershocks during the Russian campaign, and they were of such magnitude that both offensive
and defensive operations suffered.359

In my opinion, however, the testimonies of the witness "G." and "Gärtner" are not particularly
convincing as far as the subtleties are concerned, it may be due to faded memories or
whatever. I only mention this here for the sake of completeness.

Overall, I personally would not condition any preparedness activity on a major California
earthquake or prior volcanic activity. The same applies to the attack on New York. In principle,
it would be wrong to wait for an event that would suddenly ruin the global financial system, as
this would automatically drastically reduce the financial scope for many people.
 Unknown Diseases
Unknown diseases are also predicted from time to time. However, I also consider this sign to
be of little help, since the relevant sources are generally too vague about these diseases, and
it is completely unclear whether they mean the same disease. As a rule, the exact time and
the affected area are also unclear. Overall, the source base is insufficient. In addition, it would
also be completely unclear how one should protect oneself against these diseases.
 Conclusion What to do?
As stated at the beginning of this book, it is up to you which "prophets" you "buy" which future.
So what is the name of the prophet you trust? Barack Obama? Angela Merkel? Mario Draghi?
Pope Francis? Alois Irlmaier? Padre Pio? Drunvalo Melchizedek? Diana Cooper? ...

As for traditional European prophecy, it not only predicts a specific scenario, but describes the
way to get there. If one believes in European prophecy, one could, so to speak, lean back,
wait and see whether the "old" seers will still be right tomorrow and the day after.

However, it would not be advisable to wait until there is finally clarity about what is to come,
when personal room for manoeuvre has already shrunk due to all the crises. It would be even
more pointless to wait for the news to announce that the Russians will be here tomorrow, in a
week or in two months. You won't read anything about it in the mirror either. And there will be
no website on the Internet that can credibly assure you that the Russians will be in the country
on this or that date. But you will have known all this for a long time - or guessed it.

So you will have to monitor the situation yourself. And either one can then give the all-clear at
some point, because the predictions of the "old" seers have finally and thank God still proved
to be wrong, or one will have to make decisions at some point without really having a
guarantee that » that the Russians are coming soon«.

This is a very crucial point: should this war actually occur, there will be no official or semi-
official warning. And even in the private sphere of most people, there would probably be
puzzling around to the very end. Even if each of the big omens were gradually fulfilled, there
would probably still be the possibility of not wanting to believe all this and hoping for a
miraculous turn of events for a long time.

Ultimately, you would follow your feelings and at some point you would have to make decisions
without having absolute certainty, without knowing 100 percent what is coming next. In order
to clearly recognize this feeling for the right decision, one should be relatively independent of
the opinions of others. You gain this independence by informing yourself - on the one hand
about prophecies, but even more about what is going on in the world, in world politics, the
economy, etc. An important point is that you inform yourself early on and to monitor the
situation.

In any case, one needs to have faith in the future, no matter how difficult it gets, and even
when others are losing that faith in droves or showing that they never had it.

If you have this belief in the future, you can start making practical provisions. From my point
of view, the most important thing here is that you are not in the wrong place in an emergency.
Thus, if one believes in European prophecy, there would be areas that would in any case be
flooded and areas where war would be absolutely deadly. There would be such deadly war
zones. Any military strategist can tell you that. War has its own laws, and these determine
where to fight and where not to fight, where to fight first and where to fight later. And the latter
- the later battles - would be very important according to European prophecy, for they would
no longer take place! The Russian attack would stall halfway.
For more information about predicted high-risk areas and low-risk areas, see e.g. in my other
books (see the recommended reading in the appendix).

Once you have decided on where to stay during the critical period, you should take precautions
in case you are cut off from all supplies, there is nothing left to buy, nothing is delivered, etc.
This primarily concerns water and Food, but also fuel, medical utensils and much more.
Appropriate supplies should last for about six months. And you should only tell people you
know and trust about these precautionary measures. Most people will think you're crazy, to
put it bluntly. And those who say it straight to your face are even better. One danger is people
who listen to you taciturnly, hardly letting you know what they really think, and then start talking
bad about you behind your back. So you should be careful who you talk to about it and in
conversations first carefully test the other person's awareness of the problem and their
willingness to take the initiative.

On the other hand, you will certainly feel the need to talk to other people about this topic. After
all, it is linked to a whole bundle of emotions and thoughts that have to come out at some
point. However, I know from countless letters, emails and conversations with people from all
over Germany (Austria, etc.) in recent years that the vast majority of people who deal with the
topic in their family environment, in friends and circle of acquaintances encounter almost no
understanding. This is particularly critical when it concerns the spouse or girlfriend or
boyfriend. But that also happens, and very often!

Presumably, the current massive collective not wanting to see would change if the situation
became more critical and people in general felt more and more clearly how things are getting
more and more out of control. Nevertheless, it would remain a very large psychological barrier
for many people to seriously consider the possibility of a war in Central Europe, in their country
and in their city, especially if the question also arises as to whether one would be there if the
worst came to the worst. Is it still certain where you live right now? In principle, this question
arises for all metropolitan areas (and their immediate surroundings), because the supply
difficulties would of course be greatest there.

Strangely enough, I have observed time and again that people who are constantly going here
and there on vacation suddenly fall into a very peculiar inner paralysis when they consider for
a few moments leaving their place of residence temporarily because of a war in Germany .
Mind you, temporarily, not forever. In the event of war, a few months would be sufficient in
many cases, and one could also stay in Germany.

I personally believe very well that a few 100,000 people in this country will recognize in good
time (about a month before) what is coming our way, if it is actually going to come our way.
However, some 100,000 people are still a tiny minority in relation to around 100 million German
speakers in Europe. For the private circle of acquaintances of most readers, this would mean
purely statistically that maybe one or two new like-minded people would appear. Not much
more.

However, there may also be communication platforms via the Internet on which more is
communicated about the topic. All in all, the general conditions for communication on this topic
should improve noticeably. Just Internet communication is something completely different than
a good friend who understands and trusts you. And for many people there is no way around
the fact that at some point you may have to make a lonely decision inside yourself.

It would therefore be advisable to obtain comprehensive information at an early stage. And for
God's sake you shouldn't think that you can find everything on the internet. The work of authors
and researchers needs funding, and that funding does not essentially come through the
Internet. Consequently, the lion's share of work on traditional European prophecy is not found
on the Internet either! Books are definitely required for a deeper understanding.

And that, too, must be briefly mentioned: Of course, the issue of war precautions and early
warning of war is first and foremost a state task. It would be completely unrealistic to expect
from private initiatives - and this is how you can understand this book - that they can do what
the state actually has to do. If a society does not provide sufficient manpower and resources
for a task of societal importance, there will inevitably be insufficient results. In this respect, this
book can only achieve a fragment of what would actually be possible.

Despite all this, nobody knows the future. And even if they did, no one could prove it. More
important than supposed knowledge about the future is belief in the future, alert senses in the
here and now and the will to take a close look at things.

A Future Without a Vision?

We, Western and especially European society, have reached an end point at the beginning of
the 21st century. Argentina-born Pope Francis aptly put it in a speech to the European
Parliament in November 2014:

From several sides one gets the overall impression of tiredness and ageing, the impression of
a Europe that is no longer fruitful and alive. Accordingly, the great ideals that inspired Europe
seem to have lost their appeal [...] A Europe that is no longer capable of opening itself to the
transcendent dimension of life is a Europe that is in danger, little by little, of its soul to lose and
also that 'humanistic spirit' which it loves and defends. 360

The great Western idea of the Enlightenment, this 300-year-old project of reason, has been
overshadowed for around 100 years by the side effects and the rubbish of technical progress:
be it industrialised wars with their weapons of mass destruction, be it overpopulation,
environmental destruction, etc You know all that.I myself have been hearing and seeing
complaints about the increasing destruction of the environment on television since I was a
child, for more than 40 years now. The USSR and the Warsaw Pact collapsed. Gorbachev is
old and tired and whispers about the Third World War. But nobody listens to him. The
American Dream is broken. Diseases that were believed to be defeated are making a
comeback. Polar ice caps and glaciers are melting. Europe falters. The gap between rich and
poor is widening. It dawns. Bit by bit it gets darker. And we joke.

The dream is over. At least the big dream we dreamed together. Instead, the belief is fueled
that in an increasingly insecure world, individuals can at least bring their own little ones to dry:
you just have to be diligent and creative enough. You just have to see your chance.

We have said goodbye to the vision of a social paradise. We said goodbye to a happy vision
of the we. Instead, we try to be lone fighters in a kind of battle zone of practical constraints.
For more and more people, the perspective of life is gradually narrowing to the respective front
section on which they are wagging their struggle for existence. We lack the leisure and time
to look at the big picture. People no longer want to hear about »great visions«. It's almost
ridiculous to talk about things like that.

The term vision (Latin visio = insight, appearance) originally comes from the spiritual, the
supernatural. Some shaman, druid, priest or monk had a vision that hit him deep inside and
something kindled there. And if the flame was strong enough, it could also ignite and inspire
other people.

Visions are like ideas. you inspire. And they can be shared with other people. However,
ideas and visions differ in that visions have much more power. While you can have dozens
of ideas in a single day, having dozens of visions in a single day is less advisable because it
can burn you out. An idea essentially stays in the head, a vision penetrates to the heart, to
the soul. You can reject an idea, a vision overthrows you. She is too strong for arguments,
for ifs and buts. If a vision enters the room, the ifs and buts fall silent. And they only come
back when the vision begins to fade.

The crucial thing about a vision is its moment of power! A society without a vision lacks
precisely this power. And there is no substitute for that power. There is no substitute for real
vision. A company without a vision is a weak company, just as a company leader without a
vision is a weak company leader. Because in the long run he becomes a victim of
circumstances, wears himself out, becomes ill. Or he sells off the whole place in time.

If a society lacks the religious, spiritual, supernatural or transcendent vision, it can make up
for this deficiency with a makeshift social vision, a utopia or an ideology. This is what Lenin,
Stalin and Hitler tried to do. The result is known.

Even if the ideologies fail, you can still replace them with a materialistic or individualistic
vision: prosperity for everyone - which in practice and in truth ultimately only means my
prosperity, which I work out for myself, and which I alone or with a partner and family want to
enjoy.

But what if the general economic conditions no longer permit this level of prosperity for
everyone? When everything finally fails: religion, ideology and the promise of material
prosperity - then finally comes the great moment of truth. Because then we have to decide
whether we want to finally abandon all hope and live without any vision, or whether we want
to start looking for a real vision.

Of course, there is still something like a vision of the big picture in public space: a united
Europe, the »united world«, One World, the end of nation states, get rid of the borders. And
above all: no more wars! Peace on earth!

But how, please, is something supposed to succeed on such an abstract, unrealistic level,
on the level of the continents and the whole globe - in distant Brussels or New York or
somewhere else - that we can't even manage in a private setting? In terms of development,
we humans are primarily specialised in communicating with people we see and feel and who
we know well. But if communication doesn't really work here, where we know each other and
have a lot of knowledge and experience, how is it supposed to work on remote, abstract
levels? The answer is obvious, and in truth we all know it: it won't work at all! Not in
Brussels, Washington or anywhere else.

To make matters worse, these abstract supranational structures and organisations, infinitely
far removed from us, then also develop a life of their own beyond any control. The individual
is being monitored more and more, but these supranational structures work with almost no
control whatsoever.

And it doesn't take much brains to realise that our sacred cow, democracy, will inevitably
have to be slaughtered at some point if we get world government. Or does anyone here
believe that their vote will still have any weight if there are 5 billion other voters besides
them?

Vision Means Future

Vision always also means future. No vision without a future. And here, too, there is a problem
for our current society, because the future in the sense of a grand vision no longer fits with our
“everything and immediately” culture or a certain, ever more widespread dogmatization of the
here and now.

I want to illustrate the problem with the here-and-now dogma with a well-known song by John
Lennon. In Imagine, John Lennon expresses his hope for a better world: no more nation states,
no more religions, and with it the hope that there would be no more wars. No more hate, no
more greed, »brotherhood of man«, a united humanity, one world. Party mood, raise your
cups.

From my understanding of spirituality, the following two lines from John Lennon's song are the
most interesting:
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Of course that sounds good. And it's very popular. But here we have the next problem.
Because majority suitability says nothing about suitability in itself. Just living for today does
not produce spiritual transformation. »Living for today« sounds good. But it's not enough. If
you want to live »just for today«, then you can also live for this week, this month and this year.
In the end it doesn't make much of a difference. However, a real transformation in
consciousness only takes place when we really live for this moment, because only in this
moment can we focus our mental energy in such a way that we can bring about a
transformation. Really live for now - and not for five minutes!

Let's not fool ourselves: If we want to end and break through a 5000-year history of wars, we
will not be able to avoid a transformation of consciousness, at least not in relevant parts of
society. However, such a spiritual transformation is only possible when we develop the ability
to concentrate our mental and spiritual power completely in a time window of just a few
seconds. Only with the concentration of our mental and soul power within the small time
window in the true here and now can we achieve an energetic transformation. This is the only
way we can achieve the required operating combustion temperature for the engine of a better
society.

John Lennon's "Living for today", on the other hand, is much closer to a half-baked concept of
Cockaigne than to a basic intellectual attitude that enables genuine world peace and a truly
united world. We can only achieve world peace through inner peace, and we have to work for
it. Every man for himself. every day.

John Lennon has no vision. He's just faking it. Or he's just wrong. What he sings sounds good,
but it has no real power. It's not enough just to dream. You also have to have the will to make
the dream come true. And you have to be willing to work towards achieving it.

Still, there is a kind of useful core in Lennon's vision of life only for the present day, for it
already detaches a good chunk of past and future.
A life for this second time window of the true here and now would actually have the makings
of a great social vision. For a better world we need better people. And this better person proves
himself through his awareness in the moment, in the here and now. For society, this means
the vision of a society that enables individuals to live more in the here and now. But this here
and now must ultimately be the gateway to transcendence, to eternity, or whatever you want
to call it.

The here and now is more a goal than a goal. However, if it is the actual goal, the end point of
our journey, then there is a danger that at some point we will find ourselves in a hamster wheel
of the superficial and this world. That would be the death of all transcendence. The here and
now can be turned into its opposite just like Jesus Christ. And once the here and now has
matured into a dogma in the sense of a hamster wheel, one can take poison that clairvoyance
and prophecy will be declared the enemy of this new ideology. Because real clairvoyant
visions prove that there must be something else behind the here and now.
The main problem with the better world is that it needs better people. But the individual person
only improves out of their own inner drive. No Sunday sermons, training videos, bookshelves
with esoteric religious literature and no re-education camps help. All of this has been tried
often enough. And it didn't work
A better society cannot be stamped out of the ground. All a society can do is to help and offer
optimal conditions to those people who want to get better out of themselves. These conditions
consist essentially in the greatest possible material freedom, so that one still has the energy
to be mentally active and developing, and in the greatest possible spiritual freedom, because
this is needed to find truths, and to do so independently. You find the big truths yourself - or
not at all.

Isn't that news to you? Alright. However, the problem remains. We need a vision.

To put it simply, European prophecy predicts the failure of the "previous system" - a failure of
such dramatic proportions that it can only be compared with the failure of National Socialism
in Germany. I'm not aiming so much at a question of guilt, but rather at the depth of the
collective shock. But just as the Germans learned from the "lessons" of the Third Reich, it can
be assumed that they will also learn from this time, i.e. from the mistakes and predetermined
breaking points of the current system. And not in order to appear as a good student in front of
any authority, but because the lesson was really understood internally. Such a process does
indeed emerge in European prophecy.

Some people, who are learning more about European prophecy for the first time, feel caught
in a wave that is sweeping them into dark depths, and their spirits feel like they can't breathe
anymore. But this is ultimately not in the nature of prophecy, but in how individuals deal with
it. European prophecy leaves absolutely no doubt that after a certain time there will be light
again at the end of the tunnel. And "afterwards" not only would the rubble be removed and the
houses repaired, but new buildings would be erected that shine in a new light. Those seers
who did not get stuck in the dark tunnel with their vision describe this light quite differently.
Alois Irlmaier, for example, is rendered:
After these events comes a long, happy time. Anyone who experiences it can count themselves lucky.344 “One
would then have far less money and laws, it would be a free, better life.”345
A long period of peace and stability is looming in all European sources that have forecast so
far into the future. But this time - no matter how happy it may be - should not last forever. After
a few decades, it could be expected that the previous technological level would be reached
again, global networking would increase again, and then gradually the world state, the “One
World”, would mature. The world state would be mankind's last attempt to install a "collective
happiness system". One last time after the French Revolution, communism, fascism and
democracy, people would put all their hopes in a new system.

To put it simply, the catastrophes in connection with the Third World War would break the
power of the world machine that was growing on us for a certain time and new freedom would
arise for a few decades, which one should practise dreaming about now. Because we need
the clearest possible vision of the light at the end of the tunnel. And it would be good if we
realised that this tunnel only exists because there is a light waiting for us at the end.

Attachment

The Three Day Darkness

The three-day eclipse is by far the single event most frequently predicted in European
prophecy. The three-day darkness is predicted in particular by the most credible clairvoyants
(including Alois Irlmaier and Padre Pio). The sources concerned come from practically all over
Europe, and the event has been prophesied for centuries. In addition, the European sources
are also supported by North American, Arabic and East Asian sources.

As the name suggests, the three-day eclipse of European prophecy is a three-day eclipse,
essentially caused by a gigantic cloud of dust. According to sources, the eclipse would affect
all of Europe, the entire northern hemisphere and probably the entire world. However, there
are hardly any sources from the southern hemisphere that have been translated into German
or English. In any case, according to European sources, it could be assumed that the southern
hemisphere would also be affected, because according to European descriptions, it would
have to be a worldwide scenario.

In the war year, the cloud of dust is said to spread over Europe shortly before the start of
winter and about three months after the outbreak of the war during a cold night. The cloud of
dust is said to reach the ground in the first night, and according to the descriptions, the dust
seems to clog the lungs with the first breath, so that outside closed rooms one immediately
suffocates.

Apparently, however, the dust particles are so large that they hardly or not at all get through
door and window cracks, so that one can easily protect oneself against suffocation by
retreating into apartments and houses. In any case, people are always advised to stay at
home, keep windows and doors closed and not even open them for a brief moment.

During the three days there will be a mass death, and this will cost many more victims than
the war. Different reports are given on the number of victims, with at times one third of the
population being mentioned. It goes without saying that some authors have tried not to state
this point so clearly, and in part this is also true of the seers themselves. B. with a view to
Germany to cryptic formulations such as: “More people die overnight than in two world wars”.
363 That would be more than ten million people. Only in rare cases was and is (from the
visionary's point of view) plain language spoken, for example in the Landshuter Zeitung of
April 12, 1950, where Alois Irlmaier was quoted: "Two thirds of all people de san tot."364
Whether this number true, be undecided. And as cruel as it sounds: Should such numbers of
victims actually occur, it would take some time before we even had halfway reliable numbers
of victims in relation to the immediate vicinity, the region, Germany, etc. So the real shock
would come only gradually. In terms of the immediate personal environment, it would be a
death rate that has occurred time and time again in war or natural disaster scenarios, e.g. B.
in the Thirty Years' War or in the blockade of Leningrad in the Second World War.

As far as the cause and origin of the dust cloud is concerned, there has been no really
convincing and reliable source basis for an explanation to the best of my knowledge. However,
the prophesied timely appearance of a sun-like small celestial body, which is said to come
very close to Earth, indicates that the dust cloud is related to this celestial body. One source,
Veronica Lueken (February 10, 1972) states quite clearly that the dust originates from this
celestial body:
"The sphere spits out huge clouds of hot dust that fall (Veronica suffers coughing spasms)."365

This corresponds to the prophecy of Hepidanus of St. Gallen (allegedly 1081, Switzerland), in
which a brightly shining celestial body appears just before the cloud appears over Europa:
"Behold!" he said to me, "from midnight [north] to noon [south] the earth is divided today and the people have split
into two camps 366 [...] and calamity follows him over the mountains" like them Night after day. But the day will
soon dawn when a light will rise at midnight in the north and shine brighter than the midday sun in the south. And
the shine of the sun will fade before that light. But immediately a dark cloud will lie between that light and mankind
who looks after it. A terrible thunderstorm will form out of that cloud. It will consume a third of the people who will
then live. And a third of all the seed fields and crops will be destroyed. The third part too is of towns and villages,
367
and everywhere there will be great distress and misery."

In fact, this is the only European source I know of that shows a connection between the
appearance of a (small) sun and the (dust) cloud.

* This corresponds in principle to other European sources, according to which the Russian attack will
collapse very soon.
Of course, such a sun-like celestial body immediately raises the question of why it was not
seen coming long before - months and years before. This question is the central flaw in the
widespread prediction of the three-day eclipse (see table on page 303). A possible explanation
for the late discovery is that this celestial body emerges from behind the sun and therefore
cannot be seen at all for a long time, and that initial observations by astronomers fall under a
government blackout. If amateur astronomers could see this celestial body at the beginning of
the war, it would be too late. Due to the war, it would be easier to implement a news blackout
at this time, e.g. B. by switching off the Internet, in which the cyber war is likely to rage anyway
at the latest from the outbreak of war.

It is also conceivable that amateur astronomers can recognize the celestial body well before
the outbreak of war, but then a news blackout is imposed with regard to the exact trajectory
data in order to prevent mass panic.

In addition to the cause of the dust cloud, there is another serious inconsistency in the three-
day eclipse in that the duration of the eclipse is given with an extremely high degree of
agreement with three days: by over 95 percent (!) of the sources I know who comment on the
duration (29 of 30!, see page 303). However, based on current knowledge, it seems extremely
unlikely that a cloud that obscures the sky for three days has completely disappeared by the
morning of the fourth day. Rather, toward the end of the eclipse, a twilight would be expected
that would last for a number of days, if not weeks.

Assuming that the three days are not a symbolic statement, which I do not believe, there must
be some unknown factor that is responsible for the rapid disappearance of the cloud from the
third to the fourth day. Perhaps there would be a phenomenon based on the increased
electrostatic charge that should certainly exist with such a large cloud of dust, possibly in
combination with a crazy geomagnetic field.

A number of readers will find these attempts at explanation absolutely unsatisfactory. And
frankly, I'm not much different. On the other hand, the three-day eclipse is predicted by so
many, especially the most credible sources in Europe, that it is the prophecy of European
prophecy par excellence. Basically, one can only get out of this predicament if one denies the
existence of real clairvoyant ability per se, and fabricates a gigantic copying manoeuvre that
spans countries and centuries, for whose cause and motive one can only pull one's hair by
the hair.

Incidentally, the Bible cannot serve as a model for such a potential copying manoeuvre.
Although there are echoes of a similar event, the European sources describe this event with
a wealth of consistent details that are not found in the Bible.

The thesis that the three days are meant only symbolically is of course obvious, but also not
tenable, since then at least in individual cases a real duration of the darkness would have to
be expected or a deviation from the three days (five days, one week, two weeks, etc.). As far
as I know, there are no deviations in the duration except for a single case!

Furthermore, the celestial body, the dust cloud, the three-day eclipse, and the mass extinction
outside of the war zones (of non-nuclear war!) are not the only clues to this scenario. For
example, several sources indicate a simultaneous small impact and the abrupt global shift in
climate zones. This indicates that at the same time as the three-day eclipse there is a strong
perturbation on the earth's magnetic field or an additional gravitational force enters the earth's
gravitational field for a short time.

Approaching the prophecy of the three-day eclipse with a scientific, truth-seeking spirit
suggests that seers down the centuries - and not just in Europe - have seen something that
actually exists somewhere: either in the future or otherwise on a certain mental level.

Given the apparent ambiguity surrounding the prophecy of this event, a sensible, pragmatic
approach to the three-day eclipse would simply be to wait and see how the global situation
unfolds. Should the Russian attack then come about, which is currently completely unthinkable
for many people in Europe, this would be an ideal time to consider that completely different
“completely unthinkable” things are about to happen. Because most of the sources that predict
the darkness also predict war. The two events definitely belong together. The eclipse would
come about three months after the war began.

You can find more detailed information about the three-day eclipse in all my books. The most
extensive material (around 40 pages) is contained in my book Prophecies - old news in new
times.

Explanations of the three-day eclipse table

Group 1 (1-30) definitely refers to the three-day eclipse. Only one source of group 1 - the
Seher from the Waldviertel - deviates from the duration of three days! In the Waldviertel
there may be local reasons why darkness and/or air pollution lasts longer.

Group 2 (31-57) includes sources that lack information on the duration of the eclipse, but
these sources provide details that also point to the three-day eclipse.
 Table of the three-day eclipse

* In some cases, further references are required for individual sources - see page 306 for reference codes

Perhaps 15 percent of Group 2 may not be related to the three-day eclipse upon closer
inspection (for which I currently lack the data). I explain below why the Group 2 sources are
pointing to the three-day eclipse.

As can be seen from the table, the more forecasts I have collected from the source (“War”
column + “Records” column), the more often the three-day eclipse is mentioned in
connection with a war. This is significant as a few sources predict multiple three-day eclipses
(e.g. Wolfgang Zönnchen). However, discussing this makes little sense due to the thin
database in this regard. But even if there were several three-day eclipses, the crucial one
would be the one related to the war that Russia is about to start.
The individual letters at the top of the columns refer to different aspects of the three-day
eclipse mentioned by each source.

3 = 3 Tage Dauer (nur Gruppe 1) Ü = Überflutungen

F = Finsternis O = Orkane

W = Wolke D = (großer) Donner

~ = Störung der Gravitation V = Blitze

P = (leuchtender) Himmelskörper H = man soll im Haus bleiben

E = Erdbeben F = man soll nicht aus dem Fenster sehen

N = neues Land taucht auf T = man soll nicht die Haustüre öffnen

Please note the »H«, »F« and »T« columns. There, the sources give advice on how to behave
at this time. In the cases marked with »=«, the details clearly point to the three-day eclipse.
So e.g. E.g. when talking about a disturbance of the gravitation in connection with an eclipse:
column "F" ("W") + column "~". Or, if the appearance of a star is mentioned in connection with
the eclipse: column »F« (»W«) + column »P«. Indirectly, the pole shift could also be indicated
by strange changes in the starry sky or the planetary sky. These strange changes can e.g. B.
in a rolling of the sky, falling or colliding of stars or strange movements of the planets including
the sun and moon. In most of these cases, one can assume significant disturbances in the
gravitational structure of our solar system. Likewise, a sinking or emergence of land masses
in connection with an eclipse (columns »E«, »N«, »Ü«) indirectly indicates a pole shift. Besides
a pole shift, what (besides a gigantic meteorite impact) could unleash the energies required?
In principle, this applies to the sudden and drastic accumulation of natural catastrophes during
the time of darkness. Where is this enormous energy suddenly coming from?

Also pointing to the three-day darkness (as in the case of Erna Stieglitz) is a cloud of poison
during a war, from which around a third of the people die in huge areas. This does not mean
the “yellow line” at all, since the area affected would be much smaller there, but the death rate
within the area would be 100 percent. In the case of the three-day eclipse, the number of
victims in the sources is essentially between 1/3 and 2/3.

Recommended Reading Prophecies

Works by Stephan Berndt:

1. Prophecies, old news in new times

Although this book is now more than ten years old, it is by no means outdated. Of all
my books, it contains the most comprehensive map material and is the most scientific
of my books, but not necessarily ideal as a start.
Regensburg 2001, 457 pages

2. Prophecies about the future of Europe and real events

This book offers a good introduction to the subject of prophecy and the future of
Europe and compares the most important predictions with current developments. The
book contains practically no maps.
Regensburg 2007, 301 pages

3. Alois Irlmaier - a man says what he sees

This book deals with the topic of prophecies about the future of Europe using the
example of Alois Irlmaier. It is ideal for readers from Upper Bavaria and the foothills
of the Alps. Those who come from other regions in the German-speaking area should
definitely obtain other literature about prophecies after a certain time, since one
should definitely consult other seers outside of Bavaria. All in all, the book is a very
good introduction to the subject of clairvoyance, since the case of Alois Irlmaier is
excellently documented with a wealth of partly official documents and the myth that is
stultifying the people is dispelled that there is no real clairvoyance. Irlmaier's
predictions give a very good overview of the prophecies about the future of Europe
and Germany, but understandably often have a Bavarian focus. Regensburg 2014
(2nd edition), 373 pages

4. Alois Irlmaier - I see it very clearly

This approximately two-hour DVD is ideal if you want to bring the subject closer to
someone who you think will not read a book on it. Elbingen 2013, 120 minutes

Prevention

In a survey of those who have studied the subject of prophecy for years, the following books
were highly recommended:

1. Encyclopaedia of Survival by Karl Leopold von Lichtenfels, Cologne 2006, 493 pages

2. The Big Book of Survival Techniques by Gerhard Buzek, Hamburg 2007, 506 pages

3. US Army Survival Handbook by John Boswell and Hermann Leifeld, Stuttgart 2006, 256
pages

4. The provision bible by Ralf and Birgit Londe, Hamburg 2011, 294 pages
Literature Codes
Allgeier Prophecies of Nostradamus

Voldeben Nostradamus and the Great Prophecies

(1992)

Silver Prophecies up to the threshold of the 3rd

millennium

Lemesurians Secret code Cheops

Loerzer visions and prophecies

Bekh On the eve of darkness

Kahir Close to 2000 years

Voldeben Nostradamus and the Great Prophecies

(1981)

Bekh The third world event

Gustavson Strange Faces

Varena Collected Prophecies

Ellerhorst Prophecies about the destiny of Europe

Ellerhorst (1992) or Prophecies of the fate of Europe

(1951) Prophecies of the fate of Europe

Schnyder (German library in Frankfurt) How do you

survive the Third World War? (1991)

Stocker Cleansing the Earth (Volume I)

Backmund Psychics see the future

Hübscher The Great Prophecy

Schönhammer PSI and the Third World War

Stocker Purification of the Earth (Volume II)

Stocker prophetic words

Bekh Alois Irlmaier

Korkowski Battle of Dimensions (Volume I)

Korkowski Battle of Dimensions (Volume II)

Wilkerson The visions

Snow future visions of mankind

Buchela But I tell you

Gann future of the occident?

Bouvier Nostradamus

Renner world conflagration

Hagl Apocalypse as hope

Heibel This matters to all of us

gloriadei.info /lightindex.php?topic=256.0;wap2

Centurio The Great Prophecies of Nostradamus

Stearn Jess Prophecies in trance

Schönhammer Third World War and turning point

Kaiser The Voice of the Great Spirit

Mann Prophecies at the turn of the millennium

Sun Bear The earth is in our hands

San Miguel De Laatste Zegels

Eilenberger & Schubert Nostradamus, Pictures of the Future

PaB : Privatarchiv Berndt

Photo Credit
Remarks
 Bibliography
Adlmaier, Dr. Conrad: Blick in die Zukunft, Traunstein 1950, 1955, 1961
Allgeier, Kurt: Die Prophezeiungen des Nostradamus, München 1990
Arkin/Fieldhouse: Nuclear Battlefields, Königstein im Taunus 1980
Backmund, Norbert: Hellseher schauen in die Zukunft, Grafenau 1972
Bader, Meinrad P.: Alois Simon Maaß, Stift Stams 1981
Bekh, Wolfgang Joh.: Am Vorabend der Finsternis, Pfaffenhofen 1988
Bekh, Wolfgang Joh.: Das dritte Weltgeschehen (besteht aus zwei Teilen, die 1976 u. 1980 veröffentlicht
wurden), München 1985
Bekh, Wolfgang Joh.: Alois Irlmaier, Pfaffenhofen 1990
Bekh, Wolfgang Joh.: Bayrische Hellseher, Pfaffenhofen 1976
Berndt, Stephan: Prophezeiungen, alte Nachricht in neuer Zeit, Regensburg 2001
Berndt, Stephan: Prophezeiungen zur Zukunft Europas & reale Ereignisse, Regensburg 2007
Berndt, Stephan: Alois Irlmaier - ein Mann sagt, was er sieht, Regensburg 2009
Berndt, Stephan: Hellseher und Astrologen im Dienste der Macht, Graz 2011
Berndt, Stephan: Alois Irlmaier - ich seh's ganz deutlich, Elbingen 2013
Bhutta, Dr. A. R.: Prophezeiungen über die Endzeit, Frankfurt 1986
Bonsen, F. zur: Die Schlacht am Birkenbaum, Essen 1940
Bouvier, Bernhard: Nostradamus, Lingen 1996
Brzezinski, Zbigniew: Die einzige Weltmacht - Amerikas Strategie der Vorherrschaft, Frankfurt a. Main 1997
Buchela: Ich aber sage euch, München 1983
Centurio, N. Alexander: Die großen Weissagungen des Nostradamus, 1988
DeGard, Leo H.: Wer plant den 3. Weltkrieg?, Rottenburg a. N. 2002
DeGard, Leo H.: Armageddon, Rottenburg a. N. 2003
Der Morgenstern Nr. 9 - 1420/1999, Lympia, Lefkosia, Zypernl999
Eilenberger, Wolfram, Schubert, Victor: Nostradamus, Zukunftsbilder einer anderen Wirklichkeit, München 1999
Ellerhorst, Winfried: Prophezeiungen über das Schicksal Europas, Regensburg 1951
Fontbrune, Dr. Max de: Was Nostradamus wirklich sagte, Berlin 1989
Friedl, Paul: Prophezeiungen aus dem bayrisch-böhmischen Raum, Rosenheim 1974
Gann, Alexander: Die Zukunft des Abendlandes? (nur noch antiquarisch erhältlich), 1986
Gustafsson, A.: Merkwürdige Gesichte!, Stockholm 1954
Hagl, Sigfried: Apokalypse als Hoffnung unseres Planeten im Licht von Ökologie und Prophezeiung, München
1992
Heilbrunn, Otto: Konventionelle Kriegsführung im nuklearen Zeitalter, Frankfurt 1967
Heising, Jan van: Der Dritte Weltkrieg, Buch 3, Lingen 1996
Hingerl, Martin: Staffelbergsagen, Freising 1920 (1921)
Hübscher, Arthur: Die große Weissagung, München 1952
Kahir, M.: Nahe an 2000 lahre, Bietigheim-Bissingen 1992
Kaiser, Rudolf: Die Stimme des großen Geistes, München 1990
Konzionator, Prof. A.: Der kommende große Monarch, Lingen (Ems) 1931
Korkowski, Edward: Kampf der Dimensionen, Band I, Gevelsberg 1990
Korkowski, Edward: Kampf der Dimensionen, Band II, Gevelsberg 1991
Künzli, F. J. (Hrsg): Die Botschaften der Frau aller Völker, Jestetten 1998 (2004)
Ladurner, Ernst: Tatsachenberichte um Alois Irlmaier, Prem/Schöngau/OBB ca. 1952
Lemesurier, Peter: Geheimcode Cheops, Freiburg/Breisgau 1988
Lips, Ferdinand: Die Gold- Verschwörung, Rottenburg a. N. 2003
Loerzer, Sven: Visionen und Prophezeiungen, Augsburg 1989
Lueken, Veronica: Rufe aus Bayside, Band 2: Die Visionen, Salzburg 1982
Lueken, Veronica: Der Weg Russlands, Bad Soden am Taunus 1990
Mann, A. T.: Prophezeiungen zur Jahrtausendwende, München 1995
May, J.: Das Greenpeace-Handbuch des Atomzeitalters, München 1989
Melzer, Gottfried: Der Matreier Prophet Egger Gilge, Lauerz 2000
Miguel, Melito San: De Laatste Zegels, Antwerpen 1992
Perle, Richard: An End To Evil, New York 2003
Renner, Rolf: Weltenbrand: Weissagungen, Seherberichte, Visionen. Elchingen 1992
Robinson, L. W.: Edgar Cayces Bericht von Ursprung und ..., München 1989
Rufe aus Bayside: Band I Die Marienbotschaft, Band II Die Visionen, Salzburg 10980
San Miguel: De Laatste Zegels, Hoboken 1992
Särközi, Alice: Political prophecies in Mongolia in the 17-20th centuries, Wiesbaden 1992
Schmidt, Helmut: Die Mächte der Zukunft, München 2004
Schnyder, Henri: Wie überlebt man den 3. Weltkrieg?, München 1984
Schönhammer, Adalbert: Dritter Weltkrieg und Zeitenwende, Hanau 1998
Schönhammer, Adalbert: PSI und der dritte Weltkrieg, Bietigheim 1978
Scholl-Latour, Peter: Russland im Zangengriff, Berlin 2006
Silver, Jules: Prophezeiungen bis zur Schwelle des 3. Jahrtausends, Genf 1987
Snow, Chet. B.: Zukunftsvisionen der Menschheit, Genf/München 1990
Snyman, Adrian: Worte eines Propheten - Der Seher van Rensburg, Argo-Verlag, Marktoberdorf 2006 Stearn,
Jess: Der schlafende Prophet, Genf/München 1982
Stocker, Josef: Reinigung der Erde, Band I, St. Andrä-Wördern 1992
Stocker, Josef: Reinigung der Erde, Band II, St. Andrä-Wördern 1992
Stojanowa, Krasimira: Wanga, das Phänomen, Steyr 2004
Sun Bear: Die Erde liegt in unserer Hand, München 1999
Tenhaeff, W. H. C.: Das Zweite Gesicht, Berlin 1995
UN: Die UN-Studie: Kernwaffen, München 1982
Varena, Marcus: Gesammelte Prophezeiungen, Freiburg/Breisgau 1959
Voldben, A.: Nostradamus - Die großen Weissagungen, München/Wien 1981
Voldben, A.: Nostradamus und die großen Weissagungen, München/Wien 1992
Von Bayern, Konstantin: Nach der Sintflut, München 1986
Weber, Albrecht: Garabandal, der Fingerzeig Gottes, Meersburg 1993
Widler, Walter: Buch der Weissagungen, Gröbenzell 1961
Wilkerson, David: Die Visionen, Erzhausen 1974
Großer Atlas zur Weltgeschichte, München 1990
Gazetteer
Person en directory
boergle