Tag Archives: eu empire

Barroso Declares EU Will Be Greatest Emerging Power in the World

EU President Sees EU as Preeminent World Power After Crisis

The markets and opinions have highly reacted to the European financial crisis and some have spelled the doom of the Euro and of the EU itself. High-level EU politicians are not seeing it that way. On the contrary, they view the crisis as an opportunity to make the changes that those who run the Union know needs to be made to turn it into the pre-eminent world empire.

According to EU President Manuel Barroso the EU is an empire, and he is not alone in his thinking. Guy Verhofstadt, leader of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats in the European Union Parliament, and former Belgian Prime Minister wrote “The Age of Empires” in November 2008. This paper refers to the EU as an empire and that the US financial crisis marked the end of the US era and ushered in a multi-polar world and age of empires.

During Barroso’s speech on November 9, 2011, in Berlin, he urged his listeners that, “The bi-polar system of the world before 1989 has been replaced by a multi-polar, more unstable and more unpredictable world.” And “if Europe wants to play its role in this new world, our nation states must realize that they do not have the power or influence to do so alone.”

After making statements that have almost become cliché, such as Europe’s challenges are even greater, their ambition must be stronger, not weaker; to ensure Europe’s continued prosperity the EU needs to match its monetary union with an economic union; the world needs a stronger Europe, more Europe, not less, Mr. Barroso shot a verbal missile when he stated, “Provided there is the political will, the greatest emerging power in the world will be the European Union.”

To accomplish this Barroso intends to to finish the unfinished business of Maastricht – to complete the monetary union with a truly economic union. Barroso has reason for so much confidence, the EU accounts for the world’s largest market, larger than the U.S., In 2007 the U.S. lost its seat as the world’s largest economy to the EU. The Euro, which was launched in 1999 amidst great pessimism, soon became the world’s second reserve currency.

Germany, the EU’s largest and the world’s third-largest economy in 2010, exported more goods and services to the Netherlands (around 15 million inhabitants) than to China, to France than to the US, to Poland than to Russia, to Spain than to Brazil, to Hungary than to India. In the same year, Germany exported almost five times as many goods to the rest of the European Union than it did to the BRICs countries altogether.

Barroso outlined five areas of immediate change. The Commission will place the governance of the Euro area within the Treaty framework. It will step up surveillance for Euro Member States and further co-decision regulation. It will come up with conditions for monitoring national budgetary policies. Thirdly, it will make proposals towards a more consolidated European voice and representation in international institutions such as the IMF. Fourthly, they will present a green paper on Euro stability bonds. Some of them can be implemented within the current Treaty, fully fledged ‘Eurobonds’ will require Treaty change. The fifth element of the economic governance package will be the 2012 Annual Growth Survey, which will set out the priorities for policies towards more growth and jobs in the EU. In addition, Barroso assigned Commissioner Olli Rehn, the task of Commission Vice President for economic and monetary affairs and the Euro.

Finally Barroso urged his listeners to choose the path of strength over weakness. Unity over fragmentation. He stated that this is not a sprint but a marathon. While Barroso sees the potential for the EU to become the greatest emerging power in the world, he knows it will take some work to get there.

For the text of the full speech see:


The Revived Roman Empire: Chapter 6



Benedict’s new “world political authority” would have power, backed by force, over the key sectors of the global economy. Throughout the long, densely written pontifical document, the same theme emerges repeatedly. He said:

“Political authority also involves a wide range of values, which must not be overlooked in the process of constructing a new order of economic productivity, socially responsible and human in scale.”

Benedict thought that “political authority” could be used safely and effectively for “constructing a new order of economic productivity.” However, post-1789 history is littered with the corpses of those slain in human efforts to construct a “new order” of any kind, however beneficent the original intent may have been. As a result of the world economic crisis, Benedict expected (and approved) growth of State power, at the national and international level: “The integrated economy of the present day does not make the role of States redundant, but rather it commits governments to greater collaboration with one another. Both wisdom and prudence suggest not being too precipitous in declaring the demise of the State. In terms of the resolution of the current crisis, the State’s role seems destined to grow, as it regains many of its competences. In some nations, moreover, the construction or reconstruction of the State remains a key factor in their development.”

His prediction that the current slump will increase government power has already been proven correct – but it is also clear that Benedict approved of this development. Benedict said, “Alongside economic aid, there needs to be aid directed towards reinforcing the guarantees proper to the State of law: a system of public order and effective imprisonment that respects human rights, truly democratic institutions.”

Note well: for Benedict, one of the two elements defining the rule of law is “a system of public order and effective imprisonment.” “Respect for human rights” is a very elastic constraint on a prison system and on a government; most governments claim that they do this. For Benedict, prison is integral to the New State that he has proposed. (Nor is Benedict’s inquisitorial definition of the “State of law” an artifact of a bad English translation; in the Latin version of the encyclical, the same sentence reads “Praeter auxilia oeconomica adesse debent subsidia, quae proprias cautiones Status iuris roborent, systema nempe ordinis publici et efficientis carcerationis, hominum iuribus servatis, quae ad instituta vere democratica spectant.”

Benedict proposed to ride the wave of globalization, using its power as a way to carry out “unprecedented … large-scale redistribution of wealth on a world-wide scale.” He said, “‘globalization, a priori, is neither good nor bad. It will be what people make of it.’ We should not be its victims, but rather its protagonists, acting in the light of reason, guided by charity and truth. Blind opposition would be a mistaken and prejudiced attitude, incapable of recognizing the positive aspects of the process, with the consequent risk of missing the chance to take advantage of its many opportunities for development. The processes of globalization, suitably understood and directed, open up the unprecedented possibility of large-scale redistribution of wealth on a world-wide scale … The transition inherent in the process of globalization presents great difficulties and dangers that can only be overcome if we are able to appropriate the underlying anthropological and ethical spirit that drives globalization towards the humanizing goal of solidarity. Unfortunately this spirit is often overwhelmed or suppressed by ethical and cultural considerations of an individualistic and utilitarian nature. Globalization is a multifaceted and complex phenomenon which must be grasped in the diversity and unity of all its different dimensions, including the theological dimension. In this way it will be possible to experience and to steer the globalization of humanity in relational terms, in terms of communion and the sharing of goods.”

Benedict called his readers to be “protagonists” – leading players and advocates – of globalization. As is usual for collectivists and utopians, Benedict scorned the “individualistic and utilitarian” opposition to a new economic order. He dismissed resistance to globalization as “blind,” seeming to ignore clear-sighted opponents of this trend. His hope for “unprecedented… large-scale redistribution of wealth on a world- wide scale” should raise alarms for anyone who is familiar with the history of post-1789 radicalism of the left or of the right.

Large-scale, rapid wealth redistribution has always been accompanied by dictatorship, famine, and violence; there is no reason to expect that the results would be different under any conceivable future globalist regime. If Benedict has discerned an “underlying anthropological and ethical spirit that drives globalization towards the humanizing goal of solidarity,” it makes sense to question his discernment in this (and related) matters.

Benedict explicitly called for redistribution of world energy resources to poor nations. In addition to energy-saving technical change and lower energy consumption by consumers and businesses in developed nations, he said,

“What is also needed, though, is a worldwide redistribution of energy resources, so that countries lacking those resources can have access to them. The fate of those countries cannot be left in the hands of whoever is first to claim the spoils, or whoever is able to prevail over the rest.”

Benedict repeated this call for redistribution of energy resources in his message for the 2010 Day of Peace. This might sound reasonable at first, and it is true that energy-poor underdeveloped nations need such assistance. However, there are insurmountable practical questions, especially given the fallen human nature of anyone who will manage such redistribution. Who will take what from whom, under what law, and by what regulatory standard, to give to whom, and with what means of enforcement? Those who would carry out  this redistribution will be no wiser, no more peace-loving, no more just, and no more honest than the current crop of world political leaders, bureaucrats, and police. Benedict emphasized the necessity for the Church to be active in the political world. He said, “The Church has a responsibility towards creation and she must assert this responsibility in the public sphere.”

(In his message for the 2010 World Day of Peace, Benedict said the same.) In his encyclical, Benedict said, “The Christian religion and other religions can offer their contribution to development only if God has a place in the public realm, specifically in regard to its cultural, social, economic, and particularly its political dimensions. The Church’s social doctrine came into being in order to claim ‘citizenship status’ for the Christian religion.” However, to say that “the Christian religion” can offer its “contribution to development only if God has a place in the public realm … particularly its political dimensions” casts disrespect on the ministry of Jesus, who said that “my kingship is not of this world” (John 18:36). It also ignores the pre-Constantine Church, which – despite centuries of persecution – managed to overturn the religious order of the world’s greatest empire without wielding any State power whatsoever.

As the capstone of his analysis, Benedict proposed the erection of a “true world political authority” with “real teeth” and wielding sufficient power to manage economics, food, armaments, environmental protection, and migration for the whole world: “In the face of the unrelenting growth of global interdependence, there is a strongly felt need, even in the midst of a global recession, for a reform of the United Nations Organization, and likewise of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth.” This new regime would have wide responsibilities: “implementing the principle of the responsibility to protect,” to “give direction to international cooperation for the development of all peoples in solidarity. To manage the global economy … to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority.”  A global authority with enough power to manage all these “portfolios” would necessarily be despotic.

Benedict imagined that the “world authority” he seeks could be directed by “the values of charity in truth,” so as to create a new “social order that at last conforms to the moral order.” This authority would be “universally recognized” and would have “the effective power” to carry out its vast mandate. He said, “Such an authority would need to be regulated by law, to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, to seek to establish the common good, and to make a commitment to securing authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in truth. Furthermore, such an authority would need to be universally recognized and to be vested with the effective power to ensure security for all, regard for justice, and respect for rights. Obviously it would have to have the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties, and also with the coordinated measures adopted in various international forums. … The integral development of peoples and international cooperation require the establishment of a greater degree of international ordering, marked by subsidiarity, for the management of globalization. They also require the construction of a social order that at last conforms to the moral order, to the interconnection between moral and social spheres.” Understanding the basis of Benedict’s manifesto, only an ecclesiastical propagandist could deny that Benedict was seeking a powerful world government.


With a new world order would come the need to propagandize the people. Benedict had this in view, since he assumed that a key role of the mass media is “engineering changes in attitude towards reality and the human person” for their audience. He said, “Given the media’s fundamental importance in engineering changes in attitude towards reality and the human person, we must reflect carefully on their influence, especially in regard to the ethical-cultural dimension of globalization and the development of peoples in solidarity. … This means that they can have a civilizing effect not only when, thanks to technological development, they increase the possibilities of communicating information, but above all when they are geared towards a vision of the person and the common good that reflects truly universal values. … To achieve goals of this kind, they need to focus on promoting the dignity of persons and peoples, they need to be clearly inspired by charity and placed at the service of truth, of the good, and of natural and supernatural fraternity.”

The same questions need to be asked here that would be asked of any other would-be social planner who wishes to manage us “for our own good”: who will define the goals that the media are to promote; who will enforce these rules, and by what means? What room will there be for dissenting views? As with all utopias, the question is: who is to engineer whom, and for whose benefit? The notion that writers (or others in the media) should be engineers of their audience is totalitarian in origin and intent. As Stalin told a meeting of writers in October 1932, “You are engineers of human souls.”

Dreaming of a new order in the current age, based on “adhering to the values of Christianity” Benedict has proposed “building a good society” and “integral human development” based on worldwide adherence to “the values of Christianity,” as defined by the Church. Early in the encyclical, Benedict said, “practicing charity in truth helps people to understand that adhering to the values of Christianity is not merely useful but essential for building a good society and for true integral human development. … Without truth, charity is confined to a narrow field devoid of relations. It is excluded from the plans and processes of promoting human development of universal range, in dialogue between knowledge and praxis.”

He has offered his own vision of total social reform, based on “plans and processes” to promote “human development of universal range.” Until now, preparing plans to direct all aspects of human development has been a hallmark of utopians and socialists. Now, Benedict is – for his own reasons – singing along with that choir. Benedict was inclined to view globalization, in its essence, as good: “The truth of globalization as a process and its fundamental ethical criterion are given by the unity of the human family and its development towards what is good.”

He said that globalization “has been the principal driving force behind the emergence from underdevelopment of whole regions, and in itself it represents a great opportunity. Nevertheless, without the guidance of charity in truth, this global force could cause unprecedented damage and create new divisions within the human family. Hence charity and truth confront us with an altogether new and creative challenge, one that is certainly vast and complex. It is about broadening the scope of reason and making it capable of knowing and directing these powerful new forces, animating them within the perspective of that ‘civilization of love’ whose seed God has planted in every people, in every culture.” Benedict imagined that somehow, those who exercise “charity in truth” while “adhering to the values of Christianity” will be able to direct globalization in order to build a “civilization of love.”

In this vision, Christian leadership, after “broadening the scope of reason and making it capable of knowing and directing these powerful new forces” (a formulation that could have come from the French Revolution), will be able to govern globalization – a political and economic force that has thus far proven able to evade restraints from nations and from today’s international organizations. Also, given the anti- Christian and anti-traditional track record of the UN and the European Union, and given the current balance of forces in the world (in which Communists, secularists, Muslims, Hindus, and followers of other faiths outweigh traditional Christians of all denominations together), it is not clear how it will ever be possible to build a “civilization of love” based on “adhering to the values of Christianity.” Does Benedict imagine that somehow, before the Return of Christ, the whole world will accept Christianity – and governance on Christian norms?

“In all cultures there are examples of ethical convergence, some isolated, some interrelated, as an expression of the one human nature, willed by the Creator; the tradition of ethical wisdom knows this as the natural law. This universal moral law provides a sound basis for all cultural, religious and political dialogue, and it ensures that the multi-faceted pluralism of cultural diversity does not detach itself from the common quest for truth, goodness and God. Thus adherence to the law etched on human hearts is the precondition for all constructive social cooperation. … The Christian faith, by becoming incarnate in cultures and at the same time transcending them, can help them grow in universal brotherhood and solidarity, for the advancement of global and community development.”

However, not all cultures accept the existence of natural law; those who acknowledge it do not necessarily agree on its principles. It is utopian to imagine that such fundamental disagreement on the nature of reality and the source of morality will be peacefully overcome in the foreseeable future. Benedict placed “charitable” political action on a par with individual charity: “The more we strive to secure a common good corresponding to the real needs of our neighbors, the more effectively we love them. Every Christian is called to practice this charity, in a manner corresponding to his vocation and according to the degree of influence he wields in the polis. This is the institutional path – we might also call it the political path – of charity, no less excellent and effective than the kind of charity which encounters the neighbor directly, outside the institutional mediation of the polis.”

To ensure that no one missed his message, he made it clear in the conclusion of the encyclical that he was addressing those who work “alongside ‘political authorities and those working in the field of economics”: “God’s love calls us to move beyond the limited and the ephemeral, it gives us the courage to continue seeking and working for the benefit of all, even if this cannot be achieved immediately and if what we are able to achieve, alongside political authorities and those working in the field of economics, is always less than we might wish.”  When Benedict said that “the political path” is “no less excellent and effective than the kind of charity which encounters the neighbor directly,” he made it seem that Christ, St. Francis of Assisi, St. John Bosco, and Blessed Teresa of Calcutta all missed their targets in directing their charity to their neighbors, rather than agitating for political reform.

Benedict said, “Man’s earthly activity, when inspired and sustained by charity, contributes to the building of the universal city of God, which is the goal of the history of the human family. In an increasingly globalized society, the common good and the effort to obtain it cannot fail to assume the dimensions of the whole human family, that is to say, the community of peoples and nations, in such a way as to shape the earthly city in unity and peace, rendering it to some degree an anticipation and a prefiguration of the undivided city of God.”  If the “earthly city” prefigures the “city of God,” and the unified “earthly city” is to cover “the whole human family,” there would be no reason not to build a new world system that would be like “a tower with its top in the heavens” (Genesis 11:4). From Genesis through Daniel to Revelation, Scripture warns against such human hubris. Several other unusual theological ideas make their appearance in this encyclical


Benedict said that “Reason always stands in need of being purified by faith: this also holds true for political reason, which must not consider itself omnipotent. For its part, religion always needs to be purified by reason in order to show its authentically human face.”  Later in the encyclical, he said that in the face of ethical challenges posed by biotechnology, “reason and faith can come to each other’s assistance. Only together will they save man. Entranced by an exclusive reliance on technology, reason without faith is doomed to flounder in an illusion of its own omnipotence. Faith without reason risks being cut off from everyday life.”

It is true that without a living faith in the one true God, application of human reason to politics is likely to produce disaster; in that sense, reason does indeed need to be “‘purified by faith.” However, it is strange for any Christian to claim that “religion” must always be “‘purified by reason.” This may be true for man-created religions, or for man- made reconstructions of Christianity. But Christian faith is not one of many man-made or partially true “religions;” it is (or should be) a relationship with Christ, who is uniquely the human face of God. How could that faith (and such a relationship between God and man) need purification by reason?

The Scriptures do not present Christian faith as something to be deduced or purified by human reason; St. Paul testifies that Christ is folly (not reason) to the Greeks, of that era or of this one: “Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? … For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles.” (1 Corinthians 1:20-23) In any event, it is not true that “reason and faith” together can “save man;” the only Savior is Christ. How could any Christian – let alone the current occupant of the Chair of Peter – suggest otherwise?


Benedict put “fidelity to man” rather than to God at the center of his social vision, and seemed to view truth as something that is assembled into “a unity” by the Church from “fragments” found in “whichever branch of knowledge”:

“Fidelity to man requires fidelity to the truth, which alone is the guarantee of freedom … and of the possibility of integral human development. For this reason the Church searches for truth, proclaims it tirelessly and recognizes it wherever it is manifested. This mission of truth is something that the Church can never renounce. Her social doctrine is a particular dimension of this proclamation: it is a service to the truth which sets us free. Open to the truth, from whichever branch of knowledge it comes, the Church’s social doctrine receives it, assembles into a unity the fragments in which it is often found, and mediates it within the constantly changing life-patterns of the society of peoples and nations.”

This vision of truth is depersonalized, and is a far cry from the clear testimony of Christ, who told His followers that He is “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). A truth that is assembled by human reason its place in a university seminar, but it will not be the same saving truth as “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). At the beginning of this same paragraph, Benedict said that “The Church does not have technical solutions to offer and does not claim ‘to interfere in any way in the politics of States.” It seems inconsistent for him then to propose that the Church assemble a unified social truth from fragments offered by the world’s branches of knowledge, and then offer this new construct to the “society of peoples and nations.” A strange faith in man also appeared when Benedict warned against “rejection, not only of the distorted and unjust way in which progress is sometimes directed, but also of scientific discoveries themselves, which, if well used, could serve as an opportunity of growth for all. The idea of a world without development indicates a lack of trust in man and in God. It is therefore a serious mistake to undervalue human capacity to exercise control over the deviations of development or to overlook the fact that man is constitutionally oriented towards ‘being more.””

Benedict’s justified rejection of back-to-nature primitivism comes with a condemnation of an odd pairing, “lack of trust in man and in God.” But nowhere in Scripture are we called to exercise “trust in man,” let alone to trust man in the way that we are to trust God. Instead, we are told to have faith in God, and to “put not your trust in princes” (Psalm 146:3). Benedict called on mankind to manage technical progress by using “human capacity to exercise control over the deviations of development,” even though the ongoing pollution of land, air, and water shows how well we exercise this “human capacity” in practice. If Benedict sought to solve environmental crises by establishing new laws and bureaucracies to “exercise control over the deviations of development,” he (and we) face the intractable reality of fallen human nature. No army of saints and angels is available to make and enforce such new controls; the only available people are people.

Benedict also overlooks the ambiguity in “the fact that man is constitutionally oriented towards ‘being more.’” We are fallen; the line between good and evil is now drawn through each human heart. Our better part seeks “being more” by following God; our evil part seeks to “be more” for ourselves against God, ever again eating illicitly of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and ever again building new Towers of Babel.


Benedict offered his readers two truths: “The first is that the whole Church, in all her being and acting – when she proclaims, when she celebrates, when she performs works of charity – is engaged in promoting integral human development. She has a public role over and above her charitable and educational activities: all the energy she brings to the advancement of humanity and of universal fraternity is manifested when she is able to operate in a climate of freedom. In not a few cases, that freedom is impeded by prohibitions and persecutions, or it is limited when the Church’s public presence is reduced to her charitable activities alone.

The second truth is that authentic human development concerns the whole of the person in every single dimension.” There are several oddities here. Benedict said that the aim of the Church “in all her being and acting” – including teaching and worship (“when she proclaims, when she celebrates”) – is “promoting integral human development.” This is a new doctrine, quite different from Christ’s post-Resurrection mandate that the Church is to “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:19-20). The earthly goals that Benedict stated (“advancement of humanity and of universal fraternity”) are good in themselves, as far as they go, but they are effects of the Church and her members acting in accord with God’s will. “Seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be yours as well” (Matthew 6:33). When Benedict says that “authentic human development concerns the whole of the person in every single dimension,” he is fostering an ideology that would govern every aspect of human life: a utopian vision in religious garb.


Like other utopians – and like Gorbachev, Kissinger, and other leaders who support a new world order -Benedict saw the post-2007 world crisis as an opportune occasion for radical change, a “new humanistic synthesis” and a “new vision for the future” that will affect “nothing less than the destiny of man.” He said that “the current crisis … presents us with choices that cannot be postponed concerning nothing less than the destiny of man, who, moreover, cannot rescind from his nature. … The different aspects of the crisis, its solutions, and any new development that the future may bring, are increasingly interconnected, they imply one another, they require new efforts of holistic understanding and a new humanistic synthesis. … The current crisis obliges us to re plan our journey, to set ourselves new rules and to discover new forms of commitment, to build on positive experiences and to reject negative ones. The crisis thus becomes an opportunity for discernment, in which to shape a new vision for the future.”  Later in the encyclical, Benedict added, “The significant new elements in the picture of the development of peoples today in many cases demand new solutions. These need to be found together, respecting the laws proper to each element and in the light of an integral vision of man … Remarkable convergences and possible solutions will then come to light.”

When Benedict saw the world crisis as “an opportunity for discernment, in which to shape a new vision for the future,” he was following the logic of American political leaders. In November 2008, Rahm Emanuel, President Obama’s chief of staff, told a Wall Street Journal conference of chief executives, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. … Things that we had postponed for too long, that were long-term, are now immediate and must be dealt with. This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before.”


Benedict called for “a dispersed political authority, effective on different levels … The articulation of political authority at the local, national and international levels is one of the best ways of giving direction to the process of economic globalization. It is also the way to ensure that it does not actually undermine the foundations of democracy,” indicating that he did not wish to build a fully centralized global regime. Later in the encyclical, Benedict restated his call for decentralization of political power in the context of global governance.

“Subsidiarity is first and foremost a form of assistance to the human person via the autonomy of intermediate bodies. … Hence the principle of subsidiarity is particularly well-suited to managing globalization and directing it towards authentic human development. In order not to produce a dangerous universal power of a tyrannical nature, the governance of globalization must be marked by subsidiarity, articulated into several layers and involving different levels that can work together. Globalization certainly requires authority, insofar as it poses the problem of a global common good that needs to be pursued. This authority, however, must be organized in a subsidiary and stratified way, if it is not to infringe upon freedom and if it is to yield effective results in practice.”

This nod in the direction of decentralized authority has given great reassurance to many American conservative commentators in the encyclical. It makes it seem as if Benedict has signed off on the equivalent of the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” However, there is little basis for such reassurance. Benedict himself places an important restriction on the scope of subsidiarity and decentralization in the next paragraph of the encyclical. He says, “The principle of subsidiarity must remain closely linked to the principle of solidarity and vice versa, since the former without the latter gives way to social privatism, while the latter without the former gives way to paternalist social assistance that is demeaning to those in need.”

This is the same logic that supporters of ever-stronger Federal authority have used since World War I to justify their own centralization of power in the US. There is no realistic reason to believe that the new rulers of a world government will show any more respect for localism and the virtues of decentralization than the US government has done with respect to states, counties, and cities. In his April 18, 2008 address to the UN General Assembly, Benedict said, “The United Nations embodies the aspiration for a ‘greater degree of international ordering’ … inspired and governed by the principle of subsidiarity, and therefore capable of responding to the demands of the human family through binding international rules and through structures capable of harmonizing the day-to-day unfolding of the lives of peoples. This is all the more necessary at a time when … the world’s problems call for interventions in the form of collective action by the international community.”

Benedict thus accepted the UN as an example of an authoritative world body “governed by the principle of subsidiarity” and able to establish “binding international rules” that will harmonize “the day-to-day unfolding of the lives of peoples.” In other words, the “world political authority” envisioned by Benedict would – by design – reach out and touch all of us in our daily lives. Furthermore, the concept of “subsidiarity” is built into the treaties that govern the European Union; anyone can see how well that is working to defend national sovereignty, traditional values, and Christian faith in Europe. If the bureaucratic, corrupt, arrogant, tyrant-coddling, pro-socialist, population- controlling United Nations and European Union are examples of the “subsidiarity” that Benedict would rely upon to curb despotism by the “world political authority” that he favors, then we should all re-read Orwell’s 1984 and Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago for tips on how to survive in the new world order.


Caritas in Veritate should be seen as what it is: a theological and political earthquake. The Roman Catholic Church, which was once a guardian of tradition worldwide, now wishes to use radical means (a “true world political authority”) for its own ends. It is as if Benedict had wished to mount and ride a wild beast, and imagined that he (and those who believe as he does) would be able to direct that fierce beast’s course. Ordinary prudence – even without reference to the dire symbolism of Revelation 17:3-18 – should have warned the Vatican against such folly. Europeans have already tried using radical means to support conservative goals; the results of that 20th century experiment in Italy, Portugal, Germany, Spain, and Vichy France are written in letters of blood and fire. Seeking a world government that is governed and limited by natural law and Christian tradition is akin to seeking dry water or square circles. Lord Acton, a Catholic historian in 19th Century England, made a warning that the Vatican ought to have heeded.

“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you super add the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority.”

No power could be more absolute than that of “world ruler,” and such is the post which (despite the fig-leaf invocation of “subsidiarity”) Benedict proposes to create. Even the billionaire leftist utopian George Soros recognized that full-scale global government would be a threat to freedom. In August 2006, he said, “I’m against global government. Now [laughing] if you don’t like a national government, you can move someplace else. A global government would probably interfere with our freedom more than national governments.” Several months later, Soros added, “A global government could not avoid being repressive even if it were built on liberal principles. A global open society could not even be as closely integrated as the European Union because the affinity among the member states would be less pronounced.” Essentially, an avowedly globalist “change agent” has a more sober perspective on global government than the Pope. In September 2009, a columnist for the London Telegraph provided a realistic view of global governance:

“The idea of global governance is meaningless without mechanisms to enforce it, so what are we talking about here? World government? A system of laws and policing which would be beyond the reach of the electorates of individual countries, and therefore have no direct democratic accountability to the peoples of those nations? Even assuming that such institutions did not take on a self-justifying life of their own – which history teaches us is almost inevitable – and that they remained fastidiously responsive to the heads of national governments, they would still be, by definition, supranational. In other words, their function would be precisely to ignore those needs and interests of individual countries which might endanger the welfare of the larger entity. And the welfare of that larger entity would be judged by – what? … It is hard enough for a leader to remain in touch with the consciousness of his own people: playing to a global electorate puts almost any politician out of his depth. Not that we are talking about electorates any longer.

Voters are way, way down on the list of considerations in this new ball game. But perhaps you find yourself convinced, in the present economic circumstances, that there are no national crises any more, only global ones – and that the governing of all nations must now be subsumed under some overarching international framework of law and supervision, to be monitored and policed by suitably empowered agencies. Maybe you think that is an acceptable price to be paid for stability at home and security abroad. But consider this: what if the new dispensation, once installed, fails to produce that stability and security, or delivers it only to certain nations (not yours), or does so only by limiting freedoms that you consider precious? What recourse will you have then to remove it peaceably from power, as you do your national government?”

As the bishops have led, the Catholic laity have followed. The Knights of Columbus, a 1.7 million member Catholic fraternal organization, passed a resolution on August 6 at their 2009 general convention expressing “deep appreciation to the Holy Father for the timely publication of the encyclical Caritas in Veritate.” Vatican apologist Robert Moynihan, founder and editor of Inside the Vatican magazine, a staunchly conservative publication, stood with the African bishops in their acceptance of Benedict’s version of global governance, and dismissed critics as “doing the work of the devil.”

On October 24, he said, “the Africans are supporting a more just ‘world order,’ something which the Pope also called for in his recent encyclical, not because they want a ‘one world government’ which might be a prelude to a type of ‘anti-Christian’ rule (the rule of anti- Christ), but precisely because there is already a ‘world mis-government’ which allows enormous injustices to be perpetrated with impunity. This leads to another thought: those who would encourage simple, good Catholics, and others, to fear that the Pope is calling for a dangerous, anti-Christian ‘new world order’ are being duped. The Pope knows that there already is a dangerous ‘world government’ (or ‘mis-government’) which is … allowing the rape of Africa, and even encouraging it. So, those who are fanning the passions of the simple against any calls for a government which could restrain these excesses, are playing the devil’s game. The type of ‘world governance’ the Pope was calling for is the same type these bishops are calling for: a reasonable government, with reasonable laws, able and willing to impede and prosecute these crimes against humanity. Until such a government is formed, to reign [sic] in the excesses already occurring, ‘anti-Christian’ forces will continue to have their day, and simple people will continue to suffer.”

Such is the counterattack that Church apologists are likely to make against traditional Christians who reject Benedict’s embrace of political globalism. Tony Blair, who converted to Catholicism in late 2007 after completing his ten-year term as Prime Minister of the UK, praised Caritas in Veritate in an August 27, 2009 speech to an annual assembly of members of Communion and Liberation, a Catholic “new ecclesial movement.” Blair, like Benedict, believes that the Church should have a strong voice in politics and global governance. More than 10,000 members of the movement, which has a reputation for orthodoxy and loyalty to the Vatican, gave Blair two standing ovations. Blair (who has been a public supporter of “the right to choose”) said, “The danger is clear: that pursuit of pleasure becomes an end in itself. It is here that Faith can step in, can show us a proper sense of duty to others, responsibility for the world around us, can lead us to, as the Holy Father calls it, “Caritas in Veritate.”

Bankers have followed the lead of churchmen, and have praised Caritas in Veritate – while defending their own wealth and privilege. On October 21, 2009, Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Westminster organized a private seminar at which chairmen and CEOs from banks and other financial institutions met to study Caritas in Veritate. (The financiers in attendance included Schroders chief executive Michael Dobson, Schroders president George Mallinckcrodt, vice chairman of Goldman Sachs International Lord Brian Griffiths, Rothschild’s director Anthony Salz, Barclays Bank chairman Marcus Agius and former Chief of the Defense Staff Field Marshal Lord Peter Inge.)

European Movement, European federalism & World Government


In my writings, I teach about European federalism, which is the ideological term for globalists who aim for a one-world government and believe that the EU should act as the cornerstone for uniting the globe.  Federalism  is the ideology that drives the Union, and many key leaders within the EU have come from Federalist ranks. European federalism closely aligns with the European Movement, which dates back to 1947. While Federalism provides the ideology and blueprint for the EU, the European Movement provides the legs.

In Bible Prophecy conspiracy, theorists often point to organizations such as the Freemasons, Bilderbergers, Trilateral Commission and Council on Foreign Relations as covert organizations conspiring for World Government. Right under the noses of conspiracy theorists existed the organizations, they should have been paying attention to whose goals and aims are not secret at all but out in the open for all to learn about and possibly join. Many Federalists belong to the Bilderbergers, and Trilateral Commission and influence within those organizations with their globalist vision.

The European Movement formed in 1947 for good reason.  The European Coal Steel Community, which pooled the steel and coal of France and Germany formed to help prevent another world war. The war officially ended with the surrender of Germany in May of 1945, followed by the surrender of Japan in August 1946. Pro-European and Federalist movements campaigned actively in favor of European unification. Some of these originated in the Resistance, and they came together to create the Liaison Committee of the Movements for European Unity on 20 July 1947 in Paris. It comprised the Independent League for European Cooperation (ILEC), led by former Belgian Prime Minister Paul van Zeeland, the Union of European Federalists (UEF), lrun by Henri Brugmans of the Netherlands, and Winston Churchill’s United Europe Movement (UEM). In Paris on 10 and 11 November 1947, they  replaced the Liaison Committee with an International Committee of the Movements for European Unity (ICMEU), which had its headquarters in London. They met again on 10 November 1947 and changed their name to The Joint International Committee for European Unity. They retained this name until after the 1948 Congress of The Hague, Alcide De Gasperi and Paul-Henri Spaak, both who were instrumental in the formation of the ECSC were elected as Honorary Presidents.

The Congress of Europe in The Hague on Oct. 25, 1948, changed its name to the European Movement) Organized by the International Committee of the Movements for European Unity and presided over by Winston Churchill, the Congress brought together representatives from across a broad political spectrum, providing them with the opportunity to discuss ideas about the development of European Union.

Important political figures such as Konrad Adenauer, Winston Churchill, Harold Macmillan, François Mitterrand, Paul-Henry Spaak, Albert Coppé and Altiero Spinelli took an active role in the Congress, and a call was launched for a political, economic and monetary union of Europe. The European Movement has been such an important part of foreign affairs in the wake of the war that the United States funded its operations and formed a U.S. branch.  The American Committee on United Europe (ACUE), founded in 1948, sought to counter the Communist threat in Europe by promoting European political integration. Its first chairman was ex-wartime OSS head, William Joseph Donovan. Declassified American government documents have shown that the ACUE was an important early funder of both the European Movement and the European Youth Campaign. The ACUE itself received funding from the Rockefeller and Ford foundations.U.S. policy promoted a United States of Europe, and the committee discretely funneled CIA funds in the amount of $1,000,000 USD per year during the mid-1950s to European Federalists supporting the Council of Europe, the European Coal and Steel Community, and the proposed European Defense Community.

The European Movements objective is to “contribute to the establishment of a united, federal Europe founded on the principles of peace, democracy, liberty, solidarity, and respect for basic human rights. It seeks to provide a structure to encourage and facilitate the active participation of citizens and civil-society organizations in the development of a united Europe.” Its 42 National Councils and 32 associated Member Organizations work towards bringing together representatives from European associations, political parties, enterprises, trade unions and individual lobbyists. The Movement focuses its efforts on influencing political, social and cultural centers within European Society. The European Movement has played a major role during the construction of the European Union.

The European Movement has been responsible for notable achievements, which have greatly contributed to the EU’s evolution.  The first major accomplishment was the setting up of the Council of Europe in May 1949. The European Movement also created the College of Europe in Bruges, which is known as the Harvard. It is to the European political elite what the Harvard Business School is to corporate America.  The Economist describes it as an elite finishing school for aspiring Eurocrats. The Financial Times writes that the elite College of Europe in Bruges in an institution geared to producing crop after crop of graduates with a lifelong enthusiasm for EU integrations.  The movement set up think-tanks and networks and the European Center of Culture in Geneva.

Since 1948, the European Movement has lobbied for further integration, on numerous subjects. It exercises its influence on European and national institutions. It worked in favor of the direct election of the European Parliament by all EU citizens, in favor of the Treaty on the European Union (the Maastricht Treaty) and also for a European Constitution. Its objective was to transform the relations between the European States and its citizens into a Federal European Union. Currently, the EMI is represented in 41 European countries and regroups 20 international associations. The European Movements objective is to transform the EU into a Federal European Union.

With such a highly sophisticated group, it is not surprising that all the Commission Presidents have been Federalists as have the presidents of the European Movement. This following page highlights, the EU’s founders,  spotlights at Commission Presidents for the last 50 years, current EU leaders and notable EU’s  movers and shakers past and present.  It is not a complete list but will give a good view to the sophistication of this group.

European Union Foundering Fathers

Jean Monnet     A French statesman and technocrat, Monnet is regarded as the father of the EU, he is the EU’s authentic architect and was the brains behind the 1950 Schuman Plan and the European Coal and Steel Community, of which he was the first president of the EC ( EU) Commission.

Robert Schuman     A Christian Democrat (M.R.P.) and an independent political thinker and activist, he presented the proposal, which was to lay the foundation for the European Union. Twice Prime Minister of France, a reformist Minister of Finance and a Foreign Minister, he was instrumental in building post-war European and trans-Atlantic institutions and is regarded as one of the founders of the European Union, the Council of Europe and NATO. He became the fifth president of the EC (EU) Parliament.

Konrad Adenuer      A founding father of the EU, Adenuer served as the first Chancellor of the Federal Republic of West Germany from 1949–1963 and chairman of the Christian Democratic Union from 1950 to 1966. He was also a member of the European Movement.

Aldice De Gasperi      Prime Minister of Italy who founded the Christian Democratic Party, and Honorary President of European Movement and second president of EC (EU) Parliament.

Paul Henri Spaak     Belgian Prime Minister and Honorary President of European Movement. He also became the first president of the EC’s (EU) parliament. He was Belgium’s foremost statesman in the decades following World War II and a leading advocate of European cooperation. He held the post of Foreign Minister of Belgium, In addition to helping form the EEC; later succeeded by the European Union), he aided in the formation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization(NATO), and Benelux, the customs union of Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg also known as the Benelux Economic Union He was elected first President of the General Assembly of the United Nations on January 16, 1946 and held this office for one session.

Alterio Spinelli     Regarded as the EU’s Godfather, Spinelli was a founding father of the EU and of the European Federalist Movement in Milan. He was a member of the European Commission for six years and a member of the European Parliament for ten years right up until his death in 1986.  During the 1980s he was a catalyst for getting the Parliament to adopt a draft treaty on European union, on which the Maastricht treaty was based. The main building of the European Parliament in Brussels is named after him. In 1941, Spinelli wrote  The Ventotene Manifesto For a Free and United Europe. Spinelli formed the Crocodile Club in 1980, named after the Strasbourg restaurant where he used to meet with a small group of MEPs.  There they plotted to turn the European Parliament into a proper legislature, with responsibility for drafting a European constitution.  These ideas opposed by Margaret Thatcher survived in watered down form in the Single European Act of 1986 and the Maastricht Treaty of 1992. The current Spinelli group was formed to ensure that the EU continues to evolve in a Federalist direction.

Other Notable EU Founders

Winston Churchill     Prime Minister of the UK, made an honorary citizen of the United States and member of the European Movement and its overseer.

Francois Mitterrand     In May 1948, Mitterrand who had been a member of the Resistance participated in the Congress of The Hague, and helped form the European Movement. Later during his tenure as Prime Minister of France he supported the enlargement of the Community to include Spain and Portugal (which both joined in January 1986). In February 1986, he helped the Single European Act come into effect, which helped speed up the decision-making process within the EU. He worked well with German Chancellor Helmut Kohl and improved Franco-German relations significantly. Together they fathered the Maastricht Treaty, which was signed on 7 February 1992. While Mitterrand was not a proclaimed Federalist he was “A Federalist in the Long Run.”

EU Commission Presidents  

Many Presidents of the last 50 years have been Federalists. Many of the EU Parliament Presidents have also been Federalists, and some have also been Presidents of the European Movement. Federalists come in a variety of flavors and colors; some are more Federalist others unionists, some more conservative others more liberal, but in the end, they are all Federalists. While there are conservatives within the EU institutions and anti Federalists, there are enough Federalists to keep the EU moving forward in a Federalist direction.

Presidents of the European Commission 

  • Jean Monnet (France, 1952-1955) President of the High Authority of the ECSC (prior to entry into force of Merger Treaty of 1967)
  • Walter Hallstein (West Germany, 1958-1967), 1st President
  • Jean Ray (Belgium, 1967-1970)
  • Franco Maria Malfatti (Italy, 1970-1972)
  • Sicco L. Mansholt(Netherlands, 1972-1972)
  • Francois-Xavier Ortoli(France, 1973-1976
  •  Roy Jenkins (United Kingdom, 1977-1980)     Jenkins served on Federal Trust’s Executive Committee in the 1960s, a founder of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) and a British MP he became the only British president of the European Commission.  
  • Gaston Edmont Thorn(Luxembourg, 1981-1984)     An Avowed Federalist, Thorn served as Luxembourg’s Foreign Minister, Foreign Trade Minister and Prime Minister, Minister of Economics, Member of the European Parliament and President of the UN General Assembly before becoming Commission President in 1981. After his term, he remained active in political affairs as President of the International European Movement.
  •  Jacques Delors (France, 1985-1995)     Commission President for ten years, (two terms) Delors previously served in the EU Parliament and then worked as economics and finance minister and budget minister for Francois Mitterrand. A fervent Federalist, he laid the groundwork for the introduction of the single market, and the creation of the Euro.  The EU as is known today is referred to as, “the house that Jacques built.”  Delors created the think tank Notre Europe in 1996.
  • Jacques Santer(Luxembourg, 1994-1999), resigned Jacques Santer, a lawyer by training, was the former Prime Minister of Luxembourg. He also served as finance minister in a nation that has been called a financial capital of the world and held posts as governor of the IMF and president of the World Bank. Although his Commission was forced to resign, and EU writers do not pay him much homage because of his resignation,  it should be noted that he possessed stellar experience in international finance, and he was the  Commission President responsible for the successful launch of the euro at a time when the media said it would not succeed. He was the right man at the right time for the launch of the Euro. Santer also saw through preparations for enlargement of the EU.  After Santer was forced to resign from the EU Commission, he went to work as a member of the European Parliament From 1999 until 2004 as an MEP. He also was on General Mediterranean Holdings‘ board, a financial holding owned by Anglo-Iraqi Nadhmi Auchi. He is currently President of Group Europe, a division of the Union of European Federalists.On Monday 23 January 2012, Jacques Santer was appointed to head the board of the Special Purpose Investment Vehicle (SPIV), which is designed to boost the firepower of the European Financial Stability Facility, the Eurozone rescue fund.
  • Manuel Marin (Spain) interim after Santer resignation     Manuel Marin is a Spanish politician, former President of the Congress of Deputies of Spain. He was a long-time member of the European Commission, and President during the interim following the Resignation of the Santer Commission, He was appointed a Vice-President of the European Commission, which was the first Commission presided over by Jacques Delors. Marin was given the portfolio of Social Affairs, Education.  Marin was responsible for a number of important initiatives including the Erasmus Programme, which still runs today and has acquired iconic status as a symbol of European integration, his initial priority was the successful integration of Spain into the life of the European Communities. Marin was reappointed into the second Delors Commission from 1989–1992, again as Vice-President and oversaw development cooperation and the Common Fisheries Policy.
  • Marin was appointed to the third Delors Commission (1993–1994with responsibility for development and cooperation, economic external relations with southern Mediterranean countries, Latin America, Asia, African, Caribbean and Pacific countries, and humanitarian aid. Marin’s final term in the European Commission was in the Santer Commission from 1995 until 1999. His initial portfolio in this mandate was external relations with Southern Mediterranean countries, the Middle East, Latin America and Asia, including development aid; in this period difficulties in implementing the EU’s “Mediterranean strategy” under his leadership began to lead to complaints of incompetence and of fraud. Manuel held a Certificate of Advanced European Studies, College of Europe, Bruges, which rendered him certifiably Federalist.
  • Romano Prodi (Italy, 1999-2004)     Former Prime Minister of Italy before becoming Commission President. Prodi called on the headquarters of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to be relocated from Washington to European soil.  Prodi is an arch Euro-Federalist.  In a speech to an EU summit in Barcelona in 2002, Prodi stated that Europe’s goal was to create “a superpower on the European continent that stands equal to the United States.” He also stated, “We will rebuild the Roman Empire.”
  • Manual Boroso (Portugal, 2004-)     Former Prime Minister of Portugal, moderate Federalist and like Jacques Delors, Barroso is a two term president. Barroso hails the EU as an Empire.

 Present EU Leaders

Herman Von Rumpey A self-proclaimed Federalist but not a fundamentalist and a Former Prime Minister of Belgium and first full time president of the European Council.

Lady Ashton     British Labour politician who is a Federalist in the closet and the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of the European Union (EU) She is also the First-Vice-President of the European Commission (since February 2010). Although nowhere  does it state that Lady Ashton is a Federalist, if she were not one in hiding, the many Federalists who make up the EU would not have nominated her to the post.

Martin Schultz The European Parliament President, and German MEP, Martin Schulz, said: “We need a strong united Europe.”  During Barosso’s last election, he chose rather for a more staunch Federalist to get the seat of the EU Commission, Guy Verhofstadt.

The Parliament President who Schultz replaced:

Jersey Buzek Former Prime Minister of Poland and former president of the EU Parliament.  He is a Euro Federalist, and he called for a new Schuman declaration in the consumption and production of energy-a European energy community as the next big vision for Europe.

NATO  Secretary Generals and Federalists during NATO’s Transition Period

Javiar Solana Spain’s political minister for 13 years and anti-American, anti-NATO,  and the ninth Secretary General of NATO from 1995 to 1999. Immediately, after Solana went to work as the High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union and Secretary-General of the Western European Union (WEU and after 2004 as Head of the European Defense Agency (EDA.) With all of Mr. Solana’s EU leanings one has to wonder what he was doing in NATO, and if he was strategically placed there to undermine the organization.  Solana took over the position in NATO from Federalist Willy Claes who had been forced to resign in a corruption scandal. His appointment created controversy because he had been an opponent of NATO. He wrote a pamphlet called 50 Reasons to say no to NATO, and had been on a US subversives list. One had to wonder if both men were not plants to undermine NATO at a time when NATO’s future was in question.

Willy Claes An admitted and innovative Federalist, Claes was foreign minister of Belgium from 1992 until 1994, and secretary-general of NATO from 1994 until 1995, when he resigned after the discovery and conviction of a bribe of over 50 million Belgian francs while minister of economic affairs. Claus viewed the EU’s founding fathers as wanting to create a political union in order to avoid a new military confrontation between Paris and Berlin. Concerning the nation state, Claus stated at an interview “Europe is not able to speak with one voice.  We are still living in the tradition of the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia that created the concept of the sovereign state.  Yet, because of technological revolution, the world has increasingly become a planetary village where frontiers are losing their importance.  I have the feeling that some of my colleagues still have not understood that the rule of the nation-state is weakening, especially on one continent such as Europe.”  He viewed monetary union as “The end of the so-called dictatorship of the Deutschmark and regarded Chancellor Helmut Kohl as being part of the “war generation” and that Germany … could not go alone in developing its own foreign and defense policy and that all this had to be decided in the EU.”  He even felt that Helmut Kohl admitted to this.  He believed that Europe should speak with one voice in NATO and have an important role. He sated, “I think the best solution is to do it in NATO to maintain the strategic link with the United States.”

Notable Federalists Worth a Mention

 Valéry Giscard d’Estaing     A committed Federalist and former French President. He presided over the Convention on the Future of the European Union that drafted the ill-fated Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe. He takes part, with a prominent role, to the annually held Bilderberg private conference and is an acting president of the European Movement.

Edward Heath     A longstanding Federalist and former Prime Minister of Britain, Heath brought Britain into the EEC. (EU)

 Helmut Kohl      Chancellor of Germany from 1982 to 1998 of West Germany between 1982,  and 1990 and of a reunited Germany between 1990 and 1998. Kohl is widely regarded as one of the main architects of the German reunification and, together with French President François Mitterrand, the Maastricht Treaty, which created the European Union. In 1998, Kohl was named Honorary Citizen of Europe by the European heads of state or government for his extraordinary work for European integration and cooperation, an honor previously only bestowed on Jean Monnet.

Most Outspoken Federalist

 Guy Verhofstadt     EU Mover and Shaker, former Belgian Prime Minister, MEP and leader of the ALDE (Alliance of Liberals and Democrats)group within the European Parliament. Discussions are already underway for his being nominated as the next Commission President after Borroso. Author of the United States of Europe:  Manifesto for new Europe. Verhofstadt also authored the report The Age of Empires: The Financial Crisis three ways out for Europe.  His recent work was a joint project with Daniel Cohn-Bendit titled, For Europe: Manifesto for a Post National Revolution in New Europe. He also authored How Europe Can Save the World. In addition, Mr. Verhofstadt formed the Spinelli group, which aims to insure that the EU evolve along Federalist lines and accelerate integration. Founded on 15 September 2010 in the European Parliament (EP) in Brussels, the group is named after Altiero Spinelli (1907 – 1986), founder of the Union of European Federalists (UEF) and a founding father of the European integration,

Along with Mr. Verhofstadt, the Spinelli group was formed by leading EU Federalist politicians, which include EU Commissioner and puppet Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti, who was a member of the European Commission from 1999-2004. Monti was in charge of the Single Market, Financial Services and Tax Policy from 1995 until 1999. During the following legislature, he was the European Commissioner in charge of Competition. He contributed to the  cornerstone of European integration, the Single Market.

Among the other founders are Jacques Delors, and MEP Andrew Duff Andrew Duff, who is a British politician. He is currently spokesman for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) on Constitutional Affairs. He was a member of the Convention on the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Convention on the Future of Europe. He represented the Parliament in the Intergovernmental Conference on the Treaty of Lisbon. Duff has been the Liberal Democrat Member of the European Parliament for the East of England since 1999. Elected President of the Union of European Federalists (UEF) in 2008, Duff also chairs the Federalist Intergroup in the European Parliament. Duff was Director of the EU think-tank the Federal Trust for Education and Research, 1993-99. He was Vice-President of the Liberal Democrats, 1994-97, and a City Councillor in Cambridge, 1982-90.  He is a founder member of the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), which proves my earlier point that these organizations are influenced by EuroFederalists with their globalist ideals.

Other founders of the Spinelli group include members of the Green parties.  Joschka Fischer (born 12 April 1948) is a German politician of the Alliance ’90/The Greens. In 1985, he became Minister for the Environment in the Landtag of Hesse. Fischer was again Environment Minister in Hesse from 1991 to 1994, and, later,  became co-chairman of the Greens parliamentary party in the Bundestag. In September 1998, Fischer became Minister of Foreign Affairs.  MEP Daniel Cohn-Bendit (born 4 April 1945) is currently co-president of the group European Greens–European Free Alliance in the European Parliament. In 1994, he was elected for the first time to the European parliament. He co-authored the Federalist manifesto For Euro with Guy Verhofstadt.

For the comprehensive list, you can go to http://www.spinelligroup.eu/actions/who-we-are/

Verhofstadt is also the honorary president of the Union of European Federalists (UEF) in Belgium. The EU financial crisis and its threat to the euro have caused many EU politicians to decide that the way forward out of the crisis is to unify along Federalist lines.  While moderates have been picked for the EU’s high-ranking  posts, the thought is that going forward the EU needs an aggressive Federalist.   Verhofstadt might very well be the next EU Commission president. Draft treaties are already underway to amend Lisbon to give the EU the final teeth it needs to go forward as a United States of Europe. The next conference will convene after the new Commission president of 2015 takes his seat.   All of this is 100% in line with Bible Prophecy. Bible Prophecy is being fulfilled within the current geopolitical system and is moving forward and in step with the increase in natural disasters and other signs unfolding.


The Future of Europe, Ideas, Ideals and Those who Make Them Happen, Interview,  Jean Monnet Center for International and Regional Economic Law & Justice on 30 April 2002, at NYU School of Law












The Empire: Preface & Introduction


This work began in the late 1980’s as a Bible study to see if our world was in fact in the end times. Disappointed by the conspiracy theories that I learned of in my early years as a Christian, which taught the immediate fulfillment of end time prophecy, I embarked on my own research. If prophecy was to be fulfilled, it would occur through the natural order of events. All previous prophecies came about through the affairs of their day.

Jeremiah predicted the Babylonian invasion of Israel and a conspiracy didn’t bring about Babylonia’s power. Historical circumstances and events ushered in Babylonian rule. The prophecies of the birth and death of Jesus Christ and the destruction of the second Jewish Temple occurred during Roman rein through its various leaders. Yet when it comes to end time prophecies, conspiracy theories proliferate from the Catholic Church, Illuminati, Masons, Trilateral Commission, Skull and Bones, Rothschild’s, Bildeburgers, and Jewish conspiracies which are adopted by some radical Islamic writers and feed the fire of anti-Semitism. These authors always claim to have interviewed insiders who tell all.

The Antichrist steps into his position and forms an alliance with ten rulers. He deceives the world. The Bible does not forecast a group of men as conspiracy theories teach, but one man. A false prophet assists him along with the kings who place their allegiance in him. No conspiracies bring about the final world order.

When examining end time prophecies one discovers gaps. A gap creates a hole from the present to the time of fulfillment and conspiracy theorists fill the gaps with a conspiracy theory. When I began this research over 20 years ago there existed many gaps and in this time they have closed or some have narrowed to the place that one can easily speculate on what will occur next. Conspiracy theories substitute for time consuming research on the part of the author. Many of the authors of prophetic works in relation to current events are theologians and spend little time researching current events. In the end the Devil uses these theories as tools to blind believers from the truth and rob God of glory.

No conspiracy will usher in the final world order. Prophecy will reach fulfillment in the geopolitical system. Viewing it from a geopolitical angle provides a more accurate picture of where our world stands in the prophetic time line in relation to the end times.

My hope is that his book will both educate the reader on the end time prophecies in relation to the European Union and will help to eradicate the conspiracy theories which circulate Evangelical Christian circles. After reading this work the reader will both understand the prophetic forecasts and also gain knowledge of the European Union, which if one eliminated the prophetic writings will alarm anyone. In addition, the reader will stand in awe of a God whose words written several thousand years ago are seeing fulfillment through the events of our day.


After World War II, European leaders proposed the idea of forming the European Steel and Coal Community, which birthed the European Union. Skeptics said the complicated idea will fail. In 1957, European leaders signed the Treaty that marked the birth of the European Union. In the mid 1990’s when the EU set out to complete the Common Market and eliminate trade barriers and harmonize laws among the Member States, the skeptics once again said it will fall short.

The prophet Daniel predicted 2600 years ago, the structure of the final world empire that will rule the world in the end of days and launch the Antichrist. He revealed the location of this empire when he forecast that these same people will destroy Jerusalem, and the second Temple. The evil “prince that shall come” will arise from these same inhabitants. During the Roman Empire’s reign this prophecy saw fulfillment and marked the Roman Empire as the launching pad for the Antichrist. Some Bible eschatologists cited the early European Community as the possible political entity because of its location. With the success of the 1992 Common Market, these scholars were on the mark. When the European Union embarked on its plans for a common currency, experts once again said that the feat will fail. In fact, monetary union achieved such success that the euro is stronger than the US dollar and second in line as a reserve currency to the US dollar.

The Union’s next step is to move towards political union and again the skeptics are saying that it will fail for a variety of reasons. Once again they will be wrong as the EU moves to becoming the greatest and most crushing dictatorships ever in existence.

From the start of the research for this work to the completion, this book never became outdated. Most works that relate Bible prophecy and current events quickly become obsolete as the events turn into history. The Gulf War prompted books as did other historical occurrences. This work from start to finish has not deleted dated information and this book withstands the time test because the European Union continues to evolve into the world power forecast by Daniel and John in the Revelation.

This European Union is a complicated entity and this report takes an academic approach by providing the EU’s history, evolution and facts which in many points reveal the EU’s wider ambitions and makeup, which parallel with Scripture. This book could have numbered half the pages and with larger print and act as a sensationalized work and leave the reader on the edge of their seat but with many questions. Given the complexity of the EU, less is not more in writing about the EU and prophecy.

The information compiled for this book relied on the European think-tanks that formulate EU Policy and European publications that cover the desks of EU bureaucrats. One can easily find each of the documented works. Several publications that for one reason or another went out of publication such as the newspaper, The European, and the journal, European Affairs provided excellent information. The Washington Delegation of the European Communities used to publish a magazine called, Europe: Magazine of the European Communities, which produced another viable resource. The EU’s official publications provide another source. This research began before the advent of the internet when one had to access these periodicals manually. The internet made the research easier because much of the material that one had to order from Brussels or London and subscribe to because US libraries did not carry the information, was now available online. Those publications laid the foundation of knowing where to search online. A good deal of the research for this book does not rely on the American press but rather on the European press and news organizations which offer far greater comprehensive reporting on the EU and on world news as a whole.

My goal was to leave no stone unturned and provide an analytical work based on quality research. In contrast on the theological end, this work relied on Biblical commentaries from leading commentators in Evangelical circles. Some answers came to me after much prayer, others as I opened the Scriptures and read them in addition to research.

In completing the work came a satisfaction I never experienced with any other work. I came to a place of blessing seeing Scripture literally unfold before my very eyes. Initially, when the first rough draft of this work was completed in the early 1990’s, this work was ahead of its time as many people had not even heard of the EU and most could care less. I knew that this would change in time when the EU became more recognized and as the world continued to grow more desperate as the birth pangs that Christ prophesized came upon it. These events occurred this last decade with the horrific hurricane disasters that seemed to occur one after another and the world-wide financial crisis.

At times during the course of this work I felt like a historian, only I was writing about what will take place in the future as if it already happened. I discovered the information that intelligence agency’s seek, and questioned why US agencies looked at Japan and China as possible future threats, but never examined the EU, despite its obvious stated ambitions for the global limelight as was in their past, especially considering its undemocratic structure. If I eliminated the Scriptural forecasts out of this report, one will still feel alarmed about the evolving European Union.

As I neared completion of the book, the earthquake in Haiti struck and I felt the urgency to finish the manuscript as soon as possible and get it out to the public because the time of the end is that close.

The EU continues to evolve into the crushing superpower with iron legs forecast by Scripture. Already there are hints of a police state which the British writer and theologian Alan Franklin has reported on concerning various EU laws.

According to prophecy when the Antichrist establishes his dictatorship he will abolish world religion along with any writings that oppose his police state. In that day this book too will be illegal and banned. The timing for this book’s message is now while freedom of religion and speech still exists.


The Empire: Chapter 10


The Tribulation begins when the Antichrist negotiates a peace treaty with Israel, guaranteeing its security. Three and a half years after these negotiations, he stands in the Jewish Temple and declares himself a god. The Antichrist then lays siege to Jerusalem, and seeks to exterminate the Jews. Zechariah 13:8 tells us that two-thirds of the Jewish population dies due to his exploits. The verse affirms: “And it shall come to pass, in all the land, says the Lord, that two-thirds in it shall be cut off and die; but one-third shall be left in it.” The remaining third, God refines. They call upon His name and He hears them. There are 13.3 million Jews worldwide. This would amount to the deaths of over eight million Jewish people in a three-and-a-half-year time period!

Nearly all Bible prophecy centers on Israel, including the prophecies dealing with the Tribulation. Today the Middle East is a primary focus in international affairs. The Center for Contemporary Arab Studies at Georgetown University concluded: “This very quick trip through history shows that, for several millennia, the Middle East was at the very center of the world stage. In the few hundred years between the sixteenth and the twentieth century’s, it drifted to the wings. Now it has once again been recalled, by a mysterious providence, to the center.”[177]

Jews Return to Their Own Land

Bible scholars view the reestablishment of the Israeli nation as the most important sign of the end times, because so much of Bible prophecy centers on Israel. Many commentators regard Ezekiel 37:1-22, which prophecies about God’s bringing the Jews back to their land from the valley of dry bones, as a reference to the restoration that took place in 1948. Ezekiel 37 predicted Israel’s rebirth as a nation, and in 1948 this prophecy saw fulfillment. The skeletons in the valley are a picture of the way many Jews appeared after the Holocaust. The bones cry, “our hope is lost.” At the moment of their great despair, God brings about this miracle, which is exactly what occurred. The passage discusses God’s bringing the Israelites from all of the nations where they lived, to their own land. During the Cold War, Communist nations did not allow Jews who desired to go to Israel to leave their countries. With the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, another prophecy saw fulfillment. Ezekiel 36:24 states: “For I will take you from among the nations, and gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land.”

With the fall of communism, Jews who lived under the oppression of totalitarian regimes returned home. Restrictions on Jewish emigration lifted in the Soviet Union, and twenty thousand immigrants per month poured into Israel.[178] The US, which had always provided open doors to immigrating Jews, decided to limit the number of Soviet Jews entering the country. Israel and some American Zionist organizations pressured the US not to admit them unless strong family links to current residents existed. Some 90 percent of refugees preferred the US to Israel as a destination, but this restriction forced them to go to Israel. Many remained there because of an Israeli requirement for a refund of fares and related costs should such refugees attempt to move to another country.[179] Politics did not force Jews to return to Israel, but God’s divine hand brought them into their land.

Although Israel became a nation, it does not possess all the land God promised to Abraham. Under King Solomon, Israel came to possess most of it. The land promised was Palestine, stretching from the Sinai Desert north and east to the Euphrates River. This includes present day Israel, Lebanon, and the West Bank of Jordan, plus substantial portions of Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia.[180]

Israel’s History of Conflict

• In 1948, Israel became a nation.


• Five Arab countries—Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon—declared war and attacked the new nation.

• In 1949, Israel signed a series of truces with the Arab countries.

• In 1956, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser barred Israeli ships from using the Suez Canal. He launched guerrilla attacks against Israel. Israel attacked Egypt and occupied the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza strip.

• In 1957, Israel withdrew from these territories under strong pressure from the UN, US, and Soviet Union.

• In 1964, in Cairo, at an Arab League meeting, activists formed the Palestinian Liberation Organization.

• In 1967, after a marked rise in activities against Israel by the Arab countries, Israel launched a preemptive strike. The Israelis destroyed the Egyptian Air Force on the ground. Israeli troops swept to the banks of the Suez Canal, and fought the Syrians in the Golan Heights. Jordan entered the war. When the armies declared a cease-fire, the Israeli army occupied the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza strip, East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights.

Theologian and author John Walvoord commented concerning Israel’s victories in this war:

As a result of the war, Israel increased her territory from eight thousand to thirty-four thousand square miles and doubled her population. Most important from the prophetic point of view, Jerusalem was back in the hands of Israel. The prospect of another war averted for the time being. Israel had suffered less than a thousand battle fatalities in contrast to thirty thousand Arab dead. Israel had tremendously increased her stature as a nation among nations and left the military might of her enemies in shambles. The world had begun to notice the prophets’ predictions that the Jews will “never again…be uprooted from the land I have given them (Amos 9:15). [181]

• Israel absorbed East Jerusalem in 1967.

• The UN Security Council adopted resolution 242, which calls for Israeli withdrawal from “territories occupied” in the June War. It also calls for Arab recognition of Israel’s “right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries.” The United Nations invited the PLO to take part in a General Assembly discussion of the Palestine question. It approved a resolution recognizing the right of the Palestinian people to independence and sovereignty, and gave the PLO observer status at its sessions. The Arab League endorsed the PLO as the “sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.”

• In 1970, PLO guerrillas from Jordan made raids on Jerusalem. President Nasser died, and Anwar el-Sadat succeeded him.

• In 1973, Egyptian and Syrian forces attacked Israel on Yom Kippur. A Soviet- and American-sponsored cease-fire resolution ended the fighting and led to an international peace conference at Geneva.

• In 1974, Israel and Egypt signed a disengagement agreement, and Israel signed a similar one for the withdrawal of its forces from Syria and from part of the Golan Heights.

• In 1975, Israel signed a second disengagement treaty with Egypt. In that year the General Assembly adopted a resolution denouncing Zionism “as a form of racism and racial discrimination.” The move outraged Israel and its supporters.

Menachem Begin became Prime Minister of Israel. President Sadat of Egypt went to Jerusalem. This marked the first visit by an Arab head of state to Israel.


• In 1978, the top leaders of Israel, Egypt, and the US met at Camp David for twelve days and agreed on two bases for Middle East peace. In 1979, these leaders signed the Camp David Peace Treaty.

• In 1982, Israeli forces invaded southern Lebanon with the goal of ousting the PLO. They besieged Beirut for ten weeks, and sent in American troops. The next year, Ronald Reagan sent Secretary of State George Shultz to the Middle East to conclude an accord on the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Lebanon. Israel and Lebanon signed the agreement.

King Hussein of Jordan and Yasir Arafat of the PLO agreed on an initiative that called for an international peace conference under United Nations auspices. The initiative foundered because the two sides could not agree on how to include the Palestinians, and because Mr. Arafat refused to accept United States participation.

The Peace Process

In 1991, after the Gulf War, former President Bush sent Secretary of State James Baker on a series of trips to the region to explore compromises that would begin the Arab/Israeli peace process.

Israel and Lebanon would discuss the future of Israel’s declared “security zone” in southern Lebanon, which Israel had held since 1982. Syria would promise peace in exchange for the Golan Heights, captured by Israel in the 1967 Middle East War. Israel and Jordan would find a solution to the twenty-four-year Israeli occupation of the West Bank of the Jordan River, territory that Israel seized from Jordan in the 1967 war. Former King Hussein formally renounced his claim to the territory in 1988, clearing the way for a Palestinian state there. Sixty percent of Jordan’s population is Palestinian.

The major dispute is between Israel and the Palestinians. Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip seek autonomy over their affairs, in the form of Arab elections in the occupied territories, independent Palestinian municipal governments, and Palestinian administration of police forces, schools, and health care centers. Palestinians say the Arab eastern half of the city should be their capital. Israelis adamantly oppose negotiations over Jerusalem.[182]

The Oslo Accords

In 1993, Israeli and Palestinian delegations secretly negotiated in Oslo, Norway. They signed the Oslo accords at a Washington ceremony on September 13, 1993, during which former Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzahak Rabin shook hands, ending decades as sworn enemies. The Israelis and Palestinians recognized each other’s mutual political rights, and agreed to strive to live in peaceful coexistence. They set up a time table in which Israeli troops would withdraw from Gaza and Jericho, and for Palestinians would set up their own government. They looked to 1999 for the finalization of a permanent settlement.

Despite Israel’s special thirty-year relationship with the US, Israel met secretly in Oslo, Norway, for this historic conference with Palestine. They notified the US barely a few days before its finalization. US Secretary of State Warren Christopher first viewed the “Declaration of Principles” in an Israeli newspaper. Israeli Political commentator Daniel Ben-Simon stated that “the Oslo agreement put Israel’s patron to shame.”[183]

On September 28, 1995, at a White House ceremony, Israelis and Palestinians signed another deal known as the “Interim Agreement,” or “Oslo 2.” The four-hundred-page pact allowed for a second stage of autonomy for the Palestinians, giving them self-rule in various Arab cities and villages while allowing guarded settlements to remain. The Oslo Accords have not gone according to plan. The continual conflicts that have arisen between the Israelis and Palestinians have caused the peace process to reach many impasses. Former President Clinton sent former Secretary of State Warren Christopher to the region for talks. Madeline Albright followed in his footsteps. The European Union has sent several delegations to the area. Still the peace process has barely moved along.

On September 28, 2000, Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon led a delegation on a visit to the Temple Mount for a message of peace. After his visit, crowds of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank attacked Israeli security forces with guns and rocks. Palestinians blamed Sharon’s visit to the Muslim holy site for sparking the conflict, which continued into 2001 with each side blaming the other.

In July of 2000, Bill Clinton, Ehud Barak, and Yasser Arafat met at Camp David to work out the final arrangements for a Palestinian state. Barak made concessions above and beyond the framework of Oslo. He offered the Palestinians control over a large portion of Jerusalem, but Arafat walked away without making any counter-proposals. Both sides did not demonstrate flexibility during the summit to negotiate a settlement. When it became clear to the Palestinian authority that Israel could not fulfill every demand of the necessary reciprocal compromises, the Palestinian Authority chose to break off negotiations without offering any of its own proposals. Clinton placed the blame for the failure of the talks squarely at Arafat’s feet. Israel transferred virtually every Arab City and town in the territories to Arafat’s control, supplied the Arab militia with weapons, began paying Arafat a multi-million-dollar monthly allowance, and lobbied for additional financial support to permit the Palestinian authority to build an airport, operate radio and television networks, and deal with other countries as a sovereign power. But the terror and violence accelerated. The Israeli death toll soared, and captured documents proved that Arafat and his Palestinian authority schemed with terrorist states such as Iran and Syria to acquire armaments and fund terrorism. Their aim remains the same—the destruction of Israel. Again, at the Taba Talks in January 2001, Israel once again showed its willingness to make far-reaching political and strategic compromises in order to achieve peace.[184]

In February 2001, Sharon defeated Ehud Barak for the position of Prime Minister. In December 2002, Sharon made a speech at the Herzliya Conference Institute of Policy and Strategy, and stated that the next phase cannot continue until there is a calm from terrorism and until the Palestinian government reforms, that peace cannot occur with Arafat as president of the Palestinian Authority, nor without the dismantling of all existing security bodies, the majority of which are involved in terror.[185] In 2004 Yasser Arafat died.

The EU and Israel

For the Tribulation to begin, the European Union must sign a treaty with Israel, guaranteeing Israel’s peace. The US sponsors the current peace initiative. Henry Kissinger suggested in late November of 1990 that US leadership in the Middle East might be ending. “We are in a transitional period,” he said. “I would think that over a period of ten years, many of the security responsibilities that the United States is now shouldering in the Gulf ought to be carried by the Europeans who receive a larger share of the oil from the region.”[186]

For many years, the EU has followed developments in the Middle East closely, particularly the Arab-Israeli dispute. Only since the late 1970s has the EU taken a common West European stand on the Arab-Israeli conflict. They support a peaceful solution based on the 1980 Venice declaration. It affirms the right of all states in the region, including Israel, to exist within

secure frontiers, and the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. The Union believes an international peace conference on the Middle East would provide the most suitable framework for negotiations and provides aid and economic assistance to the territories.[187] It is now an EU plan to become a leading player in the Middle East. Garret Fitzgerald stated in his report to the Trilateral Commission on the Israeli-Palestinian issue:

In some European capitals, where there has for a long time been a feeling that Europe’s interest in the Middle East is greater than that of the United States but where the United States’ much greater influence in the region is recognized albeit with some sense of frustration, this American approach has been criticized as too limited and narrow, and also as being too optimistic….If, however, the policy fails, many in Europe would wish to see their governments in the European Union taking up the torch, without, perhaps, having a very clear idea as to how they could succeed where the United States had failed. [188]

In a statement by the EU Presidency to a joint meeting of members of the European Parliament and the Knesset on January 17, 1990, EU diplomats made it clear that if the Baker initiative failed: “The Twelve will be active in seeking an alternative to the Israeli-Palestinian dialogue as a means of advancing the kind of settlement advocated by the EU.”[189] The EU feels qualified to play an important role in the advancement of peace, security and development in the Middle East, both by reason of its geographic proximity and its long-standing ties with the region. The Union regards itself as the most important economic group in the world today, with corresponding political influence. It also provides two of the permanent members of the UN Security Council.

The Mediterranean area is the Union’s third main market for Community products, and the source from which the Union obtains some of its basic needs. On the EU’s current agenda of foreign policy aims is “to play a very active part in efforts to achieve a lasting peace and stability in the Middle East.”[190]

On the day the fighting ended in the Gulf, Luxembourg Foreign Minister Jacques Poos declared that the EU must help to establish peace and security in the Middle East. EU foreign ministers discussed the challenge of promoting stability in the Middle East after the war, hoping to play an influential role in rebuilding the region. Poos said in an interview that “the Middle East needs a Marshall Plan—a Europe and, if possible, worldwide plan.” The foreign ministers have underlined their willingness to do everything possible to ensure lasting peace in the region.

At a meeting in Luxembourg, EU members pleaded with then US Secretary of State James Baker for a role in the peace process. The European request evoked a lukewarm response. He suggested that the EU have observer status. During an emergency meeting the EU expressed fears that Washington will sideline the Union.[191] They issued a statement to the New York Times in 1992, in which they stated that they “hoped for a full role as cosponsor of any Middle East peace conference. Israel stated that it wants the EU to have only observer status at any peace talks. It has long been concerned over the EU’s contacts with the Palestine Liberation Organization. One EU aide, however, noted that [the EU] would have to live with the peace, and wants to be part of the creation of it.” He added that it firmly believed that “the more international the conference, the better its chances.”[192] Israel fears that the EU, which has proclaimed the need for Palestinian self-determination, has a strong pro-Palestinian and pro-Arab bias.

EU Middle East experts say the Union can make a “positive contribution” to the peace talks through its close historical, political, and economic links with the Arab world. The EU used political and economic pressure to persuade Israel to invite the Union to the negotiating table. Several EU ministers insisted that Union aid for Israel—and the Arab countries—depended on a heightened EU role in the Middle East. EU diplomats admitted that in Israel’s case, the trade and economic argument was probably more effective. The EU is Israel’s leading trading partner; the EU is Israel’s largest market for exports and its second largest source of imports after the US. EU ministers promised Israel a closer economic relationship with the EU. They offered it on the condition that Israel recognize the Union’s hopes of playing a “special role” in the Middle East. Of all the EU states, the Netherlands is an especially keen defender of Israel’s political and economic interests.[193] According to former Italian Prime Minister Gianni de Michelis:

We insisted on being among the countries promoting the conference, on equal footing with the United States and the Soviet Union. We would find it difficult, if not unfathomable, to accept a lesser role, considering the contribution the Twelve can make to the peace process and to subsequent

developments. We wish to be present not because we are seeking prestige, but because of the clear advantages our presence would bring to everyone. We have explained this several times to our Israeli friends who up until now have been those most reluctant to accept the Europeans, whom they consider as favoring the Arabs and thus wanting to transform the future conference into a court against Israel… However, vital its tie to the United States may be, the one to Europe is perhaps even more so in the long term. Israel is the daughter of Europe’s history, and not only of the holocaust that was a tragedy not only for the Jews, but also for Europe.…Anchoring Israel to Europe means eliminating one of Israel’s motives for insecurity, that of having to rely on an ally that is geographically distant, not only in terms of military assistance but also in terms of development.[194]

The EU believes it can play an important role in the peace process by providing Israelis and Arabs with economic incentives to reach a diplomatic solution. They have begun work on a regional Arab-Israeli economic cooperation program. The EU will aim at the creation of new and binding trade, industrial, and environmental links between Israel, the Palestinians, and all Arab countries in the region. The EU’s Middle East experts underline that “a precise program for cooperation, the economic advantages clearly spelt out, would be an added incentive to finding a solution to all political problems.”

Former Italian Prime Minister Gianni de Michelis and Former French Foreign Minister Roland Dumas met in Sicily along with the Middle East ambassadors. They called for “a renewed, dynamic role” for Europe,

including a seat at the negotiating table. At a press conference, Dumas said Europe must take on the role the Soviet Union could no longer play. It was no good asking Europe to make a major economic contribution while virtually excluding it from the key questions of disarmament and regional security.[195]

The Conference on Security and Cooperation in the Middle East

The EU bases its Middle East proposals on the Conference on Security and Cooperation in the Middle East. This proposal, issued in 1990 by the foreign ministries of Italy and Spain, is a regional arrangement for the Middle East. It takes in the Arab world, Israel, and Iran. The CSCE’s global approach promotes peace in the Middle East. It acts as a multilateral forum covering the entire region. Agreed on will be guidelines on several issues: security, economic development, water and other natural resources, environmental issues, and human rights.

The Conference on Security and Cooperation in the Mediterranean and the Middle East reserves a special role for the UN. Participants include the US, Soviet Union, the EU and some of its member countries, and other states from Morocco to Iran. The euro-Mediterranean conference met for the first time in Barcelona in 1995. It marked the first time foreign ministers from Syria and Israel attended the same conference.

The EU took a lead role by pledging more aid to Gaza and the West Bank than the US. It is at work creating a free trade zone with Israel. The conference launched the euro-Mediterranean Partnership and established the euro-Mediterranean Free Trade Area.[196]

The EU Demands a Leading Role in the Middle East

The European Union took a leading role in the first Palestinian elections. They coordinated an international observation operation to ensure their success. The Union voiced anger at Washington shutting it out of an emergency summit held in Washington in 1996. The French foreign minister’s spokesman stated that “the European Union has its place in the peace process. It is bound to be part of a peace settlement because it finances 75 percent of aid to the Palestinian territories.” To establish its role, the Union invited Arafat to meet its foreign ministries before he went to Washington. Italy’s foreign minister stated: “Tonight’s meeting of the European troika with President (Yasser) Arafat in Luxembourg underlines the role of Europe in the Middle East peace process, especially since it is being held before the Washington Summit.” The European Union on several occasions voiced its anger over being a money box for the Middle East without having any say in the region. They desired a role alongside the United States. Shireen Hunter, visiting research fellow at the Brussels-based Centre for European Policy Studies, stated: “If Europe is going to have any reality whatsoever, Europe has to act in one of the most important strategic areas otherwise Europe can’t be taken seriously as a global actor.” Europe continues to press for a greater role in the region, voicing its desire to have a political role as strong as its economic one.[197]

The Palestinians and Arab countries have been pushing for a greater European role to counter what they see as Washington’s pro-Israeli stance. The Union is convinced that peace in the Middle East depends on the full implementation of the existing agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. They also believe in a final solution based on international law as set by the United Nations and the principle of land-for-peace. The Union calls for “total withdrawal for total security.”

The European Parliament stated that the Union “cannot nor should not, accept East Jerusalem to be considered part of the territory and sovereignty of Israel.” The Union urges the option of a Palestinian state and they refer to east Jerusalem as a Palestinian city. The Union wrote former President Clinton to propose a joint American-European initiative to revive the Middle East peace negotiations. The United States politely brushed off the European proposal. Although the US welcomed European efforts and said they had a productive role to play, the US reaffirmed its position as having the central role in the Middle East peace negotiations.[198]

Europe essentially put its foot in the door of Middle East diplomacy. At a meeting of European and Mediterranean foreign ministers, the Dutch foreign minister brought together Yasser Arafat and Israel’s foreign minister on the sidelines of the conference. The EU president exclaimed, “it’s indispensable, the political role of Europe here.” He was speaking of the euro-Mediterranean forum. In the Amsterdam Treaty negotiated in the Summer of 1997, the Union called for and committed itself to peace in the Middle East. European diplomats hoped to get the two men together again at the next Euro-Med meeting, to win a greater role in the Mideast Peace Process. [199]

In early 1998, the EU Commission urged the European Union to review its aid program to the Middle East peace process, demanding concessions from Israel and a bigger say in the US led negotiations. In the policy paper, the Commission said that the EU should insist that Israel stop sealing off Palestinian territories from the outside world. It noted that living conditions deteriorated despite the mounds of money the EU dumped into the region. The paper said the EU should insist on participating alongside the United States in all talks between Israel and the Palestinians, and should take the lead in coordinating international economic aid. The Commissioner responsible for Middle East policy stated: “We think it is perfectly logical, as may happen in a private company if you are the main shareholder. It wouldn’t be normal for you not to be included on the board.”[200]

Since 1998, the EU’s aggressive determination to be part of the peace process helped to evolve its role as a “key player in the political and economic process.” The EU’s recent stated position on the Middle East peace process is that of a “promoter of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace and of prosperity for the region.”

The EU also acts as a “facilitator in the peace process.” It holds regular meetings with the main actors involved. The EU Troika (present and incoming Presidency, the High Representative for CFSP, and the Commission) make routine visits to the Near East. The activities of the EU Special Envoy for the Peace Process, the political talks with all parties, aimed at promoting the EU’s positions, contribute to strengthen the role of the Union in the negotiations for the final settlement of the Israeli-Arab conflict.[201]

The EU presidency issues frequent statements concerning the various stalemates that have occurred in the peace process. They also have partaken in monitoring the early Palestinian elections of 1996 and the training of Palestinian policeman. The EU has also teamed up with the US, as agreed in the Trans-Atlantic Declaration, to work together in the peace process.

At the US-EU summit in Washington on December 18, 1998, the EU stated in their Declaration on the Middle East Peace Process:

We will work together, including through our respective envoys, in the political and economic area, to build on this achievement and to help the parties move the peace process forward to a successful conclusion. We will use our partnership to support the implementation of seek ways to help the parties in the Lebanese and Syrian tracks to restart negotiations with the aim of reaching a comprehensive settlement.

The EU lends a good deal of economic support to the Middle East region. They are the largest donor of non-military aid to the peace process. The EU is the first donor of financial and technical assistance to the Palestinian authority. They are the first trading partner and a major economic, scientific and research partner of Israel, and are also a major partner of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt. In 2000, they signed the EU-Israel Association Agreement and committed themselves to establishing a partnership which provides for close political and mutually beneficial trade and investment relations together with economic, social, financial, civil scientific, technological and cultural cooperation.[202]

In the Laeken Declaration, which resulted from the European Council’s meeting in Laeken on December 14 and 15, 2001, EU leaders issued a “Declaration on the Situation in the Middle East,” stating that “it is imperative to put an end to violence.” The EU reaffirms Israel’s right to live in peace and security, and supports the establishment of a Palestinian State. The EU appeals to the Palestinian authority to end terrorism, and demands that they dismantle the Hamas’ and Islamic Jilhad’s terrorist networks, “including the arrest and prosecution of all suspects: a public appeal in Arabic for an end to the armed intifada.” The EU demands that the Israeli government withdraw all military forces, and lift all closures and restrictions—including freezes on settlements and operations—directed against Palestinian infrastructures.

A key statement of interest to students of prophecy reads: “The European Union remains convinced that setting up a third party monitoring mechanism would serve the interests of both parties. It is prepared to play an active role in such a mechanism.” Could this lead to the guarantee of peace in the region and the Covenant of Death?[203]

In May of 2002, when President George Bush, Jr. met with Commission President Prodi during a summit, he affirmed the EU’s importance in the Middle East Peace process by stating:

The United States and the EU share a common vision of two states, Palestine and Israel, living side by side in peace and security. This vision offers the Palestinian people a new opportunity to choose how they live. We should take this opportunity to help build institutions that will serve the Palestinian people, a Palestinian state and its neighbors, as well….The EU, as well and the United States has an important role to play. When the EU and the United States work together we multiply our effectiveness.[204]

In the July 2002 issue of The Federalist, Guido Montani, the Secretary General of the UEF in Italy, stated:

Presently the European Union does not have the means necessary for intervening adequately in the Middle East. The Federalists therefore are calling on the Union’s governments to convene urgently a meeting of the European Council and to declare a State of Emergency, granting the European Commission all the military and budgetary powers for solving the crisis in the Middle East.

He adds that the European Commission will act as a “provincial European government,” which should call for an international conference. He refers to “The European Peace Plan,” which must call for “the immediate creation of a Palestinian State.” Mr. Montani also adds that “the European Union, unlike the USA and Russia, has an interest in proposing to all of the Middle East countries (and not just to Palestine) a Marshall plan for development and peace.”[205]

In August 2002, the Danish presidency of the European Union announced that it was working on a three-stage Middle East peace plan, which envisioned the creation of an independent Palestinian state in 2005.

The Danish plan hoped to signal to the Arab world that Europe is still a major player in the Middle East region. Former Danish president Per Stig Moeller stated: “We must make progress on security, political and economic issues to strengthen the belief among Palestinians in a state that will be theirs and that is within reach, and reassure Israelis that they will at last have security within their own borders.”[206] Thus the groundwork for the treaty spoken of in Scriptures exists and only awaits the arrival of the Antichrist to formalize and sign it, yet the events still continue to evolve.

In December 2002, the EU, US, UN, and Russia held a Quartet meeting to discuss Middle East peace, and put forth a road map that envisions two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security.[207]

On Apr. 30, 2003, the Roadmap for Peace took place based upon a speech by President Bush and the principles of the Oslo Accords, this plan is supervised by the Quartet: the United States, the European Union, the Russian Federation and the United Nations. It called for serious alterations in the Palestinian government and resulted in the appointment of Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas. Afterward a summit took place with Sharon and Abbas reaffirming their commitment to the Roadmap. Sharon promised withdrawal of Israeli troops from Palestinian areas, and Abbas pledged an end to the Intifada and the Palestinian culture of hate against Israel. Despite the agreement, Palestinian terrorists carried out a suicide bombing in Jerusalem and the Israeli Cabinet waged war against Hamas and other terrorist groups, and halted the diplomatic process.

Later that year at the Fourth Herzliya Conference, Prime Minister Sharon presented a plan for Israel’s unilateral disengagement from the Gaza Strip and northern Samaria in exchange for peace. The disengagement plan, called for evacuating nearly 9,000 Israeli residents living in Gaza and the West Bank.

In 2005, at the Sharm el-Sheikh Summit I, Sharon met with PA President Abbas, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and King Abdullah of Jordan to announce the implementation of Israel’s disengagement from the Gaza Strip and parts of the West Bank. Abbas and Sharon agreed upon a

Ceasefire. Later in August Israel pulled all of its citizens out of the Gaza Strip and the Northern West Bank.

In 2007, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s accepted the revised Arab Peace Initiative. In response to the March 28, 2007 Arab League Summit at Riyadh, Olmert invited the Arab heads of state to a meeting in Israel to further discuss the initiative and collaborate on improving it. Olmert met with Abbas, Mubarak and Jordan’s King Abdullah II. They discussed containment of Hamas in the Gaza Strip and to strengthen Abbas’ Fatah party in the West Bank. Later that year, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas signed a joint statement in Annapolis, Md. to lay the groundwork for peace talks.

In 2008, President Bush embarked on a tour of a number of Middle East countries, starting with Israel. The purpose of the visit was to advance peace negotiations initiated at the Annapolis conference in Nov. 2007. Bush urged the Palestinian side to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure and also called on Israel to halt settlement construction and remove unauthorized settler outposts.

The Peace Valley plan is an effort personally supported by Israeli President Shimon Peres, which seeks to promote a new approach based on economic cooperation, and promotion of joint economic and business projects. In May 2008, Tony Blair, the special envoy for the Quartet announced a new plan for peace and for Palestinian rights, based heavily on the ideas of the Peace Valley plan.

In December 2008, the EU expressed the hope that Lebanon – Israel peace talks would be possible. The EU has praised the Arab Peace Initiative, as a major step forward for the Middle East Peace Process, since it offers a basis for peaceful and normalized relations between Israel and all 22 members of the Arab League.

The Resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict is now a strategic priority for Europe. They believe that without this peace, there will be little chance of dealing with other problems in the Middle East. The EU’s objective is a two-state solution with an independent, democratic, viable Palestinian state living side-by-side with Israel and its other neighbors.

The Bible tells us that the Antichrist confirms the covenant with Israel, and guarantees Israel’s peace. In 1993, the Federalist Trust, a European think-tank organization that aids in formulating EU policy, and is ahead of its time usually suggesting policy that the EU adopts a few decades

later, published a report on the Middle East. They wrote up a proposed treaty that guarantees Israel’s peace. The proposal offers the security that the US initiative fails to offer. The report proposes the establishment of a “regional security community” as the basis for the Arab-Israeli peace settlement. The proposed treaty states that the guarantor states would protect the community against external attacks. The Union would secure Israel’s peace with its army. The Scriptures state that the Antichrist confirms the covenant with many. The proposed treaty includes the world’s great powers and reads:

Moreover, the incorporation of the great powers into the security package as both the guarantors and supervisors of this arrangement raises the costs of violation dramatically. Should a certain state decide to defy the superpowers (and the other co-signatories to the agreement) and to embark on a belligerent/irredentist course, it will clearly identify itself as an aggressor and will run the risk of losing the political goodwill as well as the economic and military support of the international community, thereby dooming such a move. Hence, a security community consisting of a militarily constrained Palestinian state and a demilitarized Golan, guaranteed and strictly supervised by the great powers may satisfy Israel’s security concerns and ally its apprehensions of the adverse implications of loosening of the US-Israeli strategic relationship, caused by such a proposed arrangement. [208]

It is likely that this proposed treaty is “the covenant of death” spoken of in Scripture. According to Amos Perlmutter: “People who live in a constant state of war naturally yearn for peace; for a nation, security is the equivalent of sanity for an individual. The Israelis search for security is an obsession, a quest for an almost metaphysical security, even if they know that such protection is beyond their political and military capabilities.”[209]

When the Antichrist signs the peace treaty with Israel, this covenant assures Israel total peace. The Israelis will feel safe from the threats of their neighbors. The CSCM is the skeletal form of the proposals yet to come. The EU will guarantee Israel’s peace in the region and will act as her

protector. The world will view it as one more event in history, no cause for concern. This covenant marks the beginning of the Tribulation and ends the dispensation of grace. With events occurring at unprecedented speed, anything is possible and leaders can sign a treaty almost overnight. According to The European Journal of Internal Affairs:

Disarmament creates a fourth paradox. Never before has history seen such an acceleration. There was a time when governments determined their security priorities on a long-term basis and when diplomats negotiated for many years the finer details of acts, verification, ceilings and the like. Those items seem well and truly passed. Today, diplomats are called upon to establish treaties within six months or a year (as was said by President Bush at the Brussels summit last May), whereas the negotiating process, though working at maximum speed, will nevertheless still be unable to keep pace with the political changes which are speedily occurring both East as in the West.[210]

In Israel’s ancient past the nation became part of the empire that took it over. Thus, Israel was Assyria, Babylon, Persia and Rome. Israel will also be part of the EU. Coincidentally Israel voiced a desire to join the European Union and the Union considers Israel a possible candidate country. If the country joined it will have the security of the EU and its territory will belong to the empire. According to Michael Sctender-Auerbach from the think-tank the Century Foundation:

For Israel, EU membership would not only provide a strong security guarantee, but would afford them all of the economic advantages of the vast EU market. For the security establishment, it could possibly mean even opening the door to membership in NATO. The EU and Israel already have a formal Cooperation Agreement—ratified five years ago by the Knesset, Israel’s parliament—and this relationship has influenced economic, political and cultural exchanged.

Auerbach pointed out that Israel joined the Euro-Mediterranean zone, which will boost Israel’s financial gains in the textile industry. For Israel to gain entry into the EU it will need to negotiate a peace settlement with the Palestinians consistent with Security Council resolution 242 and to settle its border disputes with Syria and the Golen.

He also added that “as an EU member at peace with its neighbors, Israel would bolster Europe’s status as a world leader and international power broker. This will also provide Israel with the security and membership in a community of nations that accept and protect them.” He added that “the EU can currently guarantee peace without Israel becoming a member of the EU, but Israel as a member will no doubt solidify any peace agreed by providing the same protection as it would for the rest of the Member States.”[211] For the first time in history, geopolitical speak now matches what the Scriptures predicted.

Israel’s Covenant of Death

Because the EU holds strong relations with the Arab world, the Antichrist will also use these relations to guarantee Israeli peace. He will campaign for peace in Israel and the region as a whole. Israel will trust him and feel secured by his promises. With him they will sign what the Bible calls their covenant with death. Concerning Israel’s signing this agreement, in several places in Scripture the Bible elaborates on the deceit behind this promise. In the book of Isaiah, God reveals the truth of this covenant. Isaiah 28:15, 18 reads:

Because you have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with Sheol we are in agreement: when the overflowing scourge passes through, it will not come to us; for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood we have hidden ourselves.

Your covenant with death will be annulled, and your agreement with Sheol will not stand; when the overflowing scourge passes through, then you will be trampled down by it.

God is telling the Jewish nation that “with hell they are in agreement” because the man they are dealing with is none other than the Devil in a man’s body. The phrase “we have made lies our refuge” exposes that the guarantees of the treaty are false, for this leader who promises to guard Israel will seek to destroy it. He tells them that “when the overflowing scourge passes through, you will be trampled down by it.” Another words, when this man wages war against Israel, the nation will be destroyed by it. God elaborates on the Antichrist’s deception and intention as he signed this agreement. In Psalm 55: 20-21 it says:

He has put forth his hands against those who were at peace with him:

He has broken his covenant.

The words of his mouth were smoother than butter,

But war was in his heart;

His words were softer than oil,

Yet they were drawn swords.

Scripture provides a view to the emotional and physical picture of Israel once the Antichrist breaks the treaty and lays siege to the nation. Isaiah 33:7-9 states:

Surely their valiant ones shall cry outside: the ambassadors of peace shall week bitterly.

The highways lie waste, the wayfaring man ceases.

He has broken the covenant, he has despised the cities, he regards no man. The earth mourns and languishes; Lebanon is ashamed and shriveled: Sharon is like a wilderness: and Bashan and Carmel shake off their fruits.

Daniel 11:37 emphasizes the Antichrist’s regard for no man. It states: “He shall regard neither the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above them all.” Genesis 3:16 teaches that Eve represented all of womanhood. Her “desire shall be for your husband.” The desire of women is man. Thus, the Antichrist will regard no man.

The Antichrist?

The most shocking event took place in February 1998, when former Commission President Jacques Santer went on a weeklong tour of the Middle East to promote Europe’s political role in the region. Santer actually spoke of guaranteeing Israel’s peace. According to Reuters: “European Commission President Jacques Santer said on Saturday that the Middle East peace process could best move forward if Israel’s security was guaranteed and the Palestinians were able to develop their economy.”

Santer stated: “It is very important that the people of Israel live in security. The best condition is also to give the Palestinians the right to economic development.” Santer asserted that “Europe has to play a stronger role in the peace process.” The whole purpose of his visit was to ensure Europe’s political involvement. Santer affirmed: “We want political involvement and that’s why I’m here.” It does not get any closer than this, as one of the future commission president’s identity will be the Antichrist and he will mirror Santer’s words.

We know that the Antichrist must be pro-Israel in his policies. Despite some of the Union’s pro-Palestinian positions, Santer stated: “We are as pro-Palestinian as we are pro-Israel.” As if already holding a preeminent place in the peace conference, Santer added: “We have to see how we can have a real balance to make a breakthrough in the involvement and that’s why I’m here.” [212]

Santer’s visit was the first by a European Union president to the region. Despite having a Commissioner who is responsible for the Middle East region, Santer took it upon himself to act alone. During Santer’s visit he met with the Israeli leader.

Only since this last decade has the European Union made such inroads into the peace process. The Union evolved from desiring a role to achieving one. It is haunting that in 1993 the Federalist Trust drew up a treaty proposal and the Union is now in the place to initiate it. There is coming the day when the Union will broker the peace. It is possible that European leaders are negotiating this treaty this very moment.



  1. Charles Isawi, “The Middle East in the World Economy: A Long Range Historical View,” The Center for Comtemporary Arab Studies, Georgetown University, 1985, p. 13.
  2. Shuomo Avineri, “The Impact of Changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe,” Mediterranean Quarterly, Winter 1991.
  3. Garret Fitzgerald, “The Israeli-Palestinian Issue,” A Report to the Trilateral Commission, New York, May 1990, pp. 36-37. See also Robert Shawn, “A Change of Dutch Heart,” Middle East International, December 1991, p. 14.
  4. Monica Borkowski, “Israelis and Arabs: The 44 Years of Rage and Hate,” New York Times, October 1991.
  5. Op. Cit. John v. Walvoord, pp. 37-38.
  6. For chronological history see Monica Borkowski, “Israelis and Arabs: The 44 Years of Rage and Hate,” New York Times, October 1991.
  7. Israel Shahak, “Israel and Iraq: Establishing a Relationship,” Middle East International, December 1993. See also Muhammad Hallaj, “The Americans Try to Catch Up,” Middle East International, September 1993. “The Oslo Accord Text of the Declaration of Principles,” Middle East International, September 1993.
  8. Mark R. Levin, “Not So Fast,” Mark R. Levin on Bush & Mideast, on National Review Online, 25 June 2002, http://www.nationalreview.com/levin/levin062502.asp. See also Jeff Jacoby, “The Road to War in the Mideast Since the Oslo Agreements,” 2 April, 2002, http://www.science.co.il/Arab-Israeli-conflict/Articles/Jacoby-2002-04-04.asp.
  9. Speech by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon at the Herzliya Conference Institute of Policy and Strategy, 4 December 2002, http://www.herzliyaconference.org.
  10. Leon T. Hador, “The United States, Europe, and the Middle East,” World Policy Journal, Summer 1991, vol. VIII, no. 3, p. 21.
  11. Op. Cit. European Political Cooperation, pp. 10-11.
  12. Op. Cit. Garrett Fitzgerald, pp. 5, 140.
  13. Op. Cit. Stanley Hoffman, p. 39.
  14. A.G. Shawky, “A Secure Middle East,” European Affairs, August/September 1991, p. 48. See also “100 Critical Days,” p. 77.
  15. Leon T. Hador, p. 444. See also “The War Is Over,” Reuters: Europe Magazine, March 1991, p. 32.
  16. Thomas L. Friedman, “US Sees New Mideast Peace Momentum,” New York Times, 12 May, 1991.
  17. “Europe and Israel: Biting the Carrot,” Middle East International, 14 June, 1991, p. 6.
  18. Gianni de Michelis, “The Mediterranean after the Gulf War,” Mediterranean Quarterly, Summer 1991, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 3-5.
  19. Shada Islam, “Europe: Pressure from Baker,” Middle East International, 11 October, 1991, pp. 5-6.
  20. Shada Islam, “Aid for Palestinians,” Middle East International, 6 December, 1991, p. 7. See also “100 Critical Days,” p. 74. De Michelis, p. 7. Yezid Savigh, “Security and Cooperation in the Middle East: A Proposal,” Middle East International, 10 July 1992, p. 16. Martin Kohler, “The Italian Search for Mediterranean Security,” Mediterranean Quarterly, Fall 1991, p. 51.
  21. Shada Islam, “The Shape of the Aid Plan,” Middle East International, 8 October 1993, p. 7. See also “CFSP Statement on the Palestinian Elections,” Reuters, 23 January, 1996. Paul Taylor, “EU Shut Out of Washington Summit, Invites Arafat,” Reuters, 30 September, 1996. Jeremy Gaunt, “EU Wants to Be More Than Bankroller in Middle East,” 7 October 1996. Miral Fahmyu, “France Says Time Ripe for Europe Role in Mideast,” Reuters, 13 December 1996. Paul Taylor, “Chirac Says EU Must Co-Sponsor Mideast Talks,” Reuters, 19 October 1996. Jonathan Wright, “EU Refused to Be Mere Paymaster in Mideast-Italy,” 21 October 1996. David Fox, “EU Increases Pressure for More Say in Middle East,” 21 October 1996. Nashwa Hanna, “Egypt’s Mubarak Meets European Team,” 11 November 1996.
  22. “EU draws Applause with Mideast Land-for-Peace Plea,” Reuters 12 November 1996. Alister Doyle, “US, Israel Said Amenable to EU Middle East Role,” Reuters 9 January 1997. “France Ready to Send Troops for Mideast Peace,” 13 February 1997. Nicholas Doughty, “Hebron Deal Shows US Role Despite EU Ambition,” Reuters, 15 January 1997. “Peace Talks Must Be Based on Land-For-Peace,” Reuters, 17 January 1997. “EU Envoy Wants to Alter Mideast Peace Formula,” Reuters 6 March 1997. Gillian Handyside, “EU Parliament Slams Israel over New Settlements,” Reuters, 13 March 1997. “EU Urges Palestinian State Option,” Reuters World Report, 17 June 1997. Khaled Abu Aker, “EU Asserts Palestinian Rights,” Reuters, 12 November 1997. Issam Hamza, “EU Team Offers Syria Ideas to Activate Peace Talks,” Reuters, 13 November 1997. “EU Proposes Joint Mideast Peace Bid with US”, Reuters, 8 April 1997. “US Stresses Its Central Role in Mideast Peace,” Reuters, 9 April 1997.
  23. Jonathan Wright, “Europe Puts Foot in Door of Mideast Diplomacy,” Reuters, 17 April 1997. Draft Treaty Amsterdam, Presidency Conclusions, Annex III European Call For Peace in the Middle East. David Fox, “EU Hopes to Bring Arafat and Levy Face to Face,” Reuters, 22 July 1997.
  24. “EU Urged to Review Aid to Mideast Peace Process,” Reuters World Report, 16 January 1998. “Europe Wants Greater Mideast Role,” United Press International, 17 January 1998.
  25. “The EU and the Middle East Peace Process—The Union’s Position and Role,” http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/mepp/index.htm.,Slobodan Lekic “EU: Jerusalem should Be Joint Capital,” Associated Press December 8, 2009

Leon Hadar, “EU Expansion to Israel and Palestine,”Atlantic-Community.Org, February 25, 2008, http://atlantic-community.org/index/articles/view/EU_Expansion_to_Israel_and_Palestine

European Commission: Trade: Israel, http://ec.europa.eu/trade/creating-


  1. “The EU’s Mediterranean & Middle East Policy-Overview,” http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/med_mideast/intro/index.htm.

“The European Union & Policy,” Delegation of the European Commission to the State of Israel www.delist.ec.europa.com (accessed January 15, 2010)

  1. Laeken Declaration, “Declaration of the Situation in the Middle East,” p. 30.

Gerald M. Steinberg, “The European Union and the Middle East Peace

Process.”Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, November 15, 1999,


  1. “President Bush Meets with European Leaders,” 2 May 2002.
  2. Guido Montani, “A European Initiative for Peace in the Middle East,” Federalist Debate, Torino, Italy, July 2002, Year XV, no. 2, pp. 14-15.
  3. “Denmark to Unveil New Mideast Peace Plan,” 28 August, 2002.
  4. “US, UN, Russia, EU Discuss Road Map to Mideast Peace,” 20 December, 2002.
  5. The Middle East and Europe: The Search for Stability and Integration, ed. Gerd Nonneman, London: Federalist Trust for Education and Research, 1993.
  6. Amos Perlmutter, “Israel’s Dilemma,” Foreign Affairs, Winder 1989/90, p. 121.
  7. Pierre Lellouche, European Journal of International Affairs, Winter 1990, p. 125
  8. Michael Shtender, “Israel and the EU: A Path to Peace,” Century Foundation, November 3, 2005,http://www.tcf.org/list.asp?type=NC&pubid=1129

Robbie Sabel, “Israel Should Become a Member of the Council of Europe,” Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=6&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=253&PID=0&IID=1824&TTL=Israel_Should_Become_a_Member_of_the_Council_of_Europe

  1. “Santer Says Europe Seeks Greater Role in Middle East,” Reuters, 7 February 1998.


The Empire: Chapter 7

28 European Nations?

The Bible specifically states that ten nations head the federation and align with the Antichrist. Presently 28 nations are members of the European Union. The 28 nations are Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Croatia and the United Kingdom.

There is talk of the Union’s expanding to include even more members. Some experts estimate that up to thirty-five countries could make up the Union within a generation. Some even suggest that the Soviet Union could become a member of the Union. After the revolution of 1989, the list of would-be members of the European Union grew. Even Israel joins the list.

Twenty seven members do not resemble the ten-nation federation spoken of by Daniel and John in the Revelation. Currently, discussions concerning the Union going forward with political union with an inner core of nations are underway. A few decades ago when the number of nations which opted for EU membership grew, various bureaucrats determined that the Union must deepen the process of integration before enlarging. The Union must unify politically, economically, and militarily before accepting any new members. Union delegates fiercely debated widening the EU’s membership to include nearby countries. The prevailing view was that the EU should strengthen itself inwardly before it took on any new members. The Commission and the Council of the European Union formerly the Council of Ministers determined that the EU will have to achieve both political and economic union. [118]

In a larger EU, decisions become harder to reach. Solving language questions becomes extremely difficult. In a nine-language EU, any meeting of ministers requires twenty-seven interpreters. A sixteen-language EU, needs forty-two interpreters at each meeting. Some took this as evidence that a wider community required a stronger central government. With twelve members in the European Council, each representative speaks for ten minutes. This takes two hours, and rises to three hours for eighteen members, and four hours for twenty-four. Unanimous decision making becomes impossible, and a thirty-member Commission and larger European Parliament becomes too unwieldy.

The EU’s founders designed the EU’s institutions for six members. When membership reached twelve, these members expanded its capacity to the full. [119] According to the Federalist Journal Crocodile, the newsletter of “The Crocodile Club” founded in 1980 by an informal group of members of European Parliament that favored greater European integration and greater powers to the European Parliament:

There are no clear objective criteria for determining the optimum or maximum size of the Union. No one can say how many Member States it can cope with without risking paralysis or regressing into a mere free trade area. It is therefore impossible to lay down the number of Member States admitting of no further enlargement of the Union. No one can gauge the maximum absorption capacity which the Union could not exceed without bringing about its destruction, but it is indisputable that a limit exists.

The Community as presently constituted cannot encompass enlargement. Without further reform, enlargement to include 15 or more Member States would eventually spell its destruction. The choice for the Union is consequently not between deepening or widening but rather between deepening or dissolution.[120]

With enlargement, the EU sought to strengthen itself politically and suggested that a strong united core proceed ahead of the other nations. [121]

According to European Affairs, a publication which devoted itself to European Union issues:

It might be possible to envision by the end of this century a Europe of concentric circles: (1) the EU at the core; … trying to bring the two parts of Europe closer together responds to a historical urge that both sides feel. The historical basis of a whole Europe or common home after all goes back to the Empire of Charlemagne, and then the holy Roman Empire, and should at a minimum encompass the territories of those empires; both were culturally and geographically primary West European. The EU will become a community of different speeds, tiers and forms of association. [122]

As the Union prepared to enlarge its membership it went to work on internal strengthening in order to facilitate the incorporation of new members. Each country that joined the Union met strict criteria. They must be sound economically, have secure democratic institutions and adopt the body of EU law.

Former German foreign minister Joschka Fischer called for the relaunch of the process of unification through the creation of a federal core. This core will comprise of a limited number of countries, and will constitute “the centre of gravity” to which all the other states of the Union will be attracted. Another possibility is for Europe to progress at different tiers and speeds. Former French President Valéry Giscard’Estaing published what he called a Manifesto for a Federal Europe. In his manifesto, he calls for the formation of a core group of federalist countries within a wider European Union. Giscard calls this core the “European Power.” It consists of all and only those countries which are a part of European Monetary Union (EMU).

Heads of state meeting in Nice decided to undertake an in-depth review of the future of an enlarged Union and called European citizens to take part in it. The European Policy Centre, a think-tank for EU policy, devoted its resources to this debate. In the fall of 2000, Notre Europe, a think-tank founded by former European Commission President Jacques Delors, held a debate on the structure of an enlarged Europe, which had several contributors including Joschka Fischer. Although they used different metaphors—a multi-speed Europe, a pioneer group, three spheres formed on the basis of a Eurozone, which is the politically integrated area, the avant garde; some writers have referred to this inner political core as the Union’s “avant-garde” for political union —all of the speakers echoed the same message: that with the Big Bang of members about to enter the Union, institutionally the Union cannot go forward as it is currently structured without the new members’ leading to its demise. [123]

Guy Verhofstadt, former Belgian Prime Minister and EU Parliamentarian authored a manifesto for Europe titled, The United States of Europe: Manifesto for a New Europe, in it he discusses the inner core and added his own proposals and summarized them in his article, “Only a New ‘political core’ can drive Europe forward again.” He stated:


Only through adopting a unified approach in all these areas will Europe really count as a world player. …In such a scenario, Europe would comprise two concentric circles: a political core that is a “United States of Europe” based on the Eurozone, and surrounding it a confederation of countries, or a “Organization of European States.” Naturally, this political core must never prevent or oppose any form of broader cooperation. All EU Member States wishing to join it, old or new, should be able to do so; the sole precondition should be their willingness to work unconditionally on pushing ahead with the overall political project. The notion of a “United States of Europe” is the only option for the old continent. [124]


The suggested next step after the Lisbon Treaty, which will insure that the Union continues to strengthen and not be diluted by all of its members will be to form this inner core. This solid core will become “the engine of the union.” [125] Knowing that the Union will have a ten nation federation and that discussions are underway for an inner core, we see that the evolution of the Union lines up with Scripture. Europe will become a giant empire with the EU governmental power house of the Commission


and ten nation Council at the center. The next step for the EU is to form this core and when we see the EU number a political core of ten we know that the Tribulation is right at the door.


The Three Horns Plucked by the Roots


Daniel, in three separate verses, tells us that the Antichrist plucks out by their roots, three of the first horns (Daniel 7:8). Daniel envisions the ten-nation federation at its pinnacle of power. He describes the appearance of a little horn, “before whom three of the first horns were plucked out by the roots.” Disturbed by his vision, Daniel talks to an angel who discloses the truth of the fourth beast. “And about the ten horns that were on its head, and about the other horn which came up (the little horn) before which three fell.” The angel explains: “The ten horns are ten kings who shall arise from this kingdom: and another shall rise after them; he shall be different from the first ones, and shall subdue three kings.”

One view holds that this verse refers to three of the ten kings that the Antichrist subdues. In the Hebrew translation, to subdue means to humble, put down, or humiliate. This contradicts the precept of the ten-nation federation. The ten kings willingly give their power and strength unto the Beast, and have one mind. They receive power with the Beast (Rev. 17:12-13).

The Antichrist, unlike any of the other leaders who held his position, subdues them. These three kings follow his policies unwillingly, unlike the others, and he expels them from the federation. There exist many variables. The Scriptures can indirectly be stating that thirteen kings exist when the Antichrist subdues them. He expels three of them, leaving his final federation with ten. Or he can subdue three of the member nations of the wider group of 27 nations. When the Antichrist subdues three nations, this verifies his position as the man of sin. The Antichrist raises the EU to its zenith of power with his select ten nations (Rev. 13:1).

No article in the Treaty of Rome allows the EU to expel a member. Denmark, for example, rejected the Treaty on Political Union and opted out of specific policies, but it remains a full-fledged member of the European Union. No nation within the Union wishes to forfeit the economic benefits of membership. Each nation relies on its role to influence the EU’s evolution. Previous rocky relations with Greece caused EU partners to lament the absence of an expulsion clause. A petition circulated requesting signatures for the expulsion of Greece.[126] The Constitution that voters rejected included a clause that allowed for expulsion of members. When Denmark rejected the Treaty on European Union (Maastricht Treaty), there was talk in Bonn, Paris, and Brussels that Denmark could face expulsion. According to The Economist: “The eleven would renounce the Treaty of Rome and start again with a new treaty that excluded Denmark. The Council of Ministers’ legal service claimed that this would be legal.”[127]

Which three members will the Antichrist expel? Those which probably did not fit into the Old Roman Empire’s original borders? Denmark happens to be one. It presently takes an anti-Federalist stance and initially voted no to the Maastricht Treaty, which caused a stir in the whole Union. It agreed to sign, but only under its provisions. The future world ruler will not tolerate Member States half-hearted in their commitment. A ten-nation federation within the EU’s present institutional structure ensures its strength. It is no coincidence that EU policy makers wish to limit the Union’s membership from the inner core which various EU leaders have proposed since the early 1990’s.

If EU founders originally designed the Union for six members and maxed out at twelve, ten nations will end up being a good number. Taking ten of the most ambitious leaders will help the union reach important decisions quicker and more efficiently. The number might start with fewer or more but will end up at ten.

The leaders of the participating nations will form some sort of agreement like the Schengen agreement which eliminated border controls between the member countries of the Union in the mid 1980’s. Schengen added impetus to the completion of the Common Market and the Amsterdam Treaty of 1997 incorporated the agreement into EU law. An Executive Committee ran Schengen and when it became part of EU legislation, the duties of the Executive Committee transferred to the EU’s institutions in the co-decision procedure; the process by which they adopt directives and regulations. The Union will most likely incorporate the political core in the same way. They will draw up an agreement with the aim of moving the Union forward politically. Based on the Bible’s description, the ten nation federation and the Antichrist run the Union. The ten king federation will bring together the ten Council members and the President of the Commission.

The other option is to streamline the European Council which brings together the Commission President and the leaders of the EU Member States to contain members of the political core only. The Vice President of the Commission currently attends its meetings. Or the Council of the European Union which comprises of the Heads of the Member States will be revamped to reduce it to the ten strongest and add the Commission President, i.e. Antichrist. Either way the other Council will comprise of the leaders of the remaining Member States. The EU can also add the core as an additional Institution which would comprise of the ten prime ministers and the Commission President. However the EU makes these changes, the student of prophecy should keep an eye on its evolution.

Meanwhile the EU as a whole will continue to add more members. Despite the EU’s apparent willingness to consider taking in so many new members, there are strict conditions for admission. The criteria for the inner core will be those nations that possess the greatest ambition and commitment to move forward politically to evolve the Union into a full fledged political world empire. These leaders of all the remaining Member States will be ripe for the Antichrist’s leadership and vision to move the EU into becoming the most powerful and crushing world empire that has ever existed. When the Union becomes the ten-nation federation, the ten leaders will be ready to meet and assist their leader in the same way the twelve apostles assisted Jesus. When this core forms the Tribulation will practically be at the door.

States on the Current Agenda


Recognized candidates Applied Potential Candidates
Croatia, Macedonia, Turkey Albania, Iceland, Montenegro Bosnia & Herzegovina, Kosovo, Serbia


States Not on the Current Agenda States Outside Europe Eastern Europe States Outside ENP &Eap
Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland Cape Verde, Israel, Morocco KazakhastanRussia


Special Territories of Member States MicrostatesWithin western Europe, there are five microstates: Eastern Partnership States
British Dependencies, Danish self-governing communities, French overseas departments and collectivities AndorraMonacoSan Marino and Vatican City. The fifth, Liechtenstein is a member of EFTA. Monaco, San Marino and Vatican City have all signed agreements allowing them not only to use the euro, but to mint their own coins. Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine



Croatia became the 28th member in 2013 Macedonia possibly will join around 2016, and Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Montenegro, Serbia, and Turkey following, either together or in smaller groups.


  1. “European Community from Atlantic to Where?” Economist, 30 August 1991. See also “From Luxembourg to Maastricht,” p. 4. See also Wikipedia contributors, “Enlargement of the European Union, “Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enlargement_of_the_European_Union&oldid+324890035(accessed November 30, 2009)
  2. “Survival of the Fattest,” Economist, 11 April 1992, p. 54. Bernard Cassen, “How Large Is Europe?” European Affairs, August/September 1991, no. 4, pp. 19-20. See also “Leading to a Community,” Eurocom, September 1991, and Economist, 12 March, 1993.
  3. “The European Daisy,” Crocodile: Letter to the Parliament of Europe, Brussels, October 1992, Wikipedia contributors, “Crocodile Club,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crocodile_Club&oldid=317606870 (accessed February 5, 2010)
  4. Report La Commission reporte l’ecamen de cu point a sa 1112eme reunion du z juillet 1992. “Europe and The Challenge of Enlargement,” EC Commission, June 1992. “A New Partnership” #34-38.
  5. Robert D. Hormats, “Redefining Europe and the Atlantic Link,” Foreign Affairs,” Fall 1989, pp. 80, 84. See also Gregory F. Treverton, “The New Europe,” Foreign Affairs. America and the World, 1991-1992, p. 97.
  6. “The Debate on the Structure of an Enlarged Europe,” Notre Europe, 10 October 2000. See also Robert J. Gutman, Valéry D’Estaing, Europe, May 1997.
  7. Guy Verhofstadt and ‘The United States of Europe’: The Eurozone as a new core Europe: Manifesto for a New Europe, The Federal Trust for Education and Research, London, January 2006,Guy Verhofstadt, “Crisis-busting I: “Only a new ‘political core’can drive Europe forward again” Europe’s World, Spring 2006 http://www.europesworld.org/NewEnglish/Home_old/Article/tabid/191/ArticleType/ArticleView/ArticleID/21046/CrisisbustingIOnlyanewpoliticalcorecandriveEuropeforwardagain.aspx
  8. Olivier Vedrine, “Analyze: A “solid core” to build a political European Union”www.multipol.org, April 30, 2009
  9. “Europe: The Sick Man of Europe,” Economist, 9 May 1992.
  10. “Europe Ways Round That Little Danish Inconvenience,” Economist, 13 June, 1992. See also “How to Leave the Stage Gracefully,” European, 13-19 June, 1996.





The Empire: Chapter 6



t want another committee. We have too many already. What we want is a man of sufficient stature to head the allegiance of all people and to lift us out of the economic morass in which we are sinking. Send us such a man and be he god or the Devil we will receive him.

Former Belgian Prime Minister, 1st President of the EU Parliament: Paul-Henri Spaak

Daniel’s visions of the final world empire, describe a distinct political government, and provide a view to its institutional and structural make-up. Under the Antichrist’s authority, it reaches its zenith of power. Daniel describes it as “dreadful and terrible and exceedingly strong.” The Beast devours and breaks in pieces its enemies to the point of crushing their remains (Dan. 7:7). John likewise sees it in its final form “rising up out of the sea”—a figurative illustration of its rise to power (Rev. 13:1). This political power possesses the combined strength of all the empires before it. Unlike them, it devours and treads down the entire earth (Dan. 7:23, Rev. 13:2).

The Ten Horn Federation

The Beast has ten horns, and among them comes up a little horn who is the Antichrist (Dan. 7:7-8). Daniel 7:24 states that “the ten horns are ten kings who shall arise from this kingdom: and another shall rise after them.” Revelation 13:1 depicts the horns as wearing crowns. Both, the book of Daniel and the Revelation identify the horns as kings (Rev. 17:12). The prophets add that these kingdoms do not in exist at the time of the writings. European nations did not come into being until over a millennium later. Only in this last couple of centuries have these nations reigned as separate, sovereign kingdoms. The horns wearing crowns signify established kingdoms or nations. The little horn appears after the kings, and “comes up” among them. His small horn represents a relatively new political seat on the world stage when he takes power. Horns grow with age, but this one grows extremely large, quickly. Daniel tells us, “And out of one of them came a little horn, which grew exceedingly great, toward the south, toward the east, and toward the glorious land” (Dan. 8:9-10).

Despite the EU’s newness in the international arena, it has the potential to create a dictatorship that could obtain world rule. Satan himself provides the Antichrist with a political position by which he rises to greatness and conquers the world. He wears no crown because he is not the king of any one nation, yet he leads the federation.

The Antichrist exists in a symbiotic relationship with the kings. Revelation 17:13 tells us: “These are of one mind and they will give their power and authority to the beast.” The Antichrist partners with the Kings. Some label the Union a confederation. The Union considers itself a federation. In a confederation, nations or states share governmental tasks. In a federation, the members relinquish some of their sovereignty to a higher authority, which makes the laws and regulations for the signing states. The Scriptures describe the federation’s members as actual nations, not provinces or states. The Bible’s federation acts as a dictatorship.

The Treaty of Rome

Seven main institutions (based on the Treaty of Rome) make up the European Union: the Commission, the European Parliament, the Council of Ministers, the Court of Justice, and the Court of Auditors. Nine additional treaties amended the Treaty of Rome, which established the European Union on March 1, 1957. The recent Lisbon Treaty added two more institutions: the European Central Bank, and the Council of Europe which the EU previously regarded as governing bodies but not official institutions. The Treaties provide the format for the EU’s institutional structure and the agreements by which the signing nations are to abide. The member nations surrender parts of their national sovereignty to the higher authority.

The Council of The European Union

The Antichrist will be in a federation with ten kings. These kings are the Council of The European Union formerly named the Council of Ministers. They are the governmental heads of each of the Member States. Each nation addresses them by a different title, but the Bible refers to them as kings. “Prime ministers” and “presidents” have essentially the same meaning. The Council represents the highest decision-making authority in the EU, and holds the preeminent position in the institutional power balance. Although the Council does not initiate EU laws, it must approve all Community legislation. Its secretariat is located in Brussels. The Council also concludes, on behalf of the EU, all international agreements; makes the decisions necessary for framing and implementing the Common Foreign and Security Policy; and adopts measures in the field of police and judicial cooperation.

The Bible always refers to the word “council in a negative context. In Mark 13:9, Christ warns the Jews during the Tribulation to “watch out for yourselves: for they will deliver you up to councils; and you will be beaten in the synagogues. And you will be brought before rulers and kings for My sake, for a testimony to them.” The EU’s Council of Ministers may be one of the councils Christ mentioned in Scripture. The scriptures specifically mention councils and two councils exist within the EU’s institutional structure.

It is common knowledge among journalists covering the EU that the Council of Ministers meets in secret. The Belmont European Policy Center stated, in a report on the Maastricht Treaty, that the “EC Council of Ministers remains the most secretive of Community institutions.”[91] On this subject, The Economist commented that the ministers are “The EC’s real legislature and the only one in the world that does not let in the public.”[92]

In 2009 when EU leaders met to nominate the first president of the Council and foreign affairs minister, the Former Lavian president Vaira Vike-Freiberga, said that EU leaders conducted the nomination process with Soviet-style secrecy and contempt for the public. He attacked the EU for operating in “darkness and behind closed doors” and said it should “stop working like the former Soviet Union.”[93] The Council of Ministers already acts in an undemocratic fashion. The previous chapter discussed the ambition that reigns among these leaders for leading superpower status which creates the climate for a powerful leader.

Revelation 17:12 describes the ten horns as ten kings who “receive authority for one hour as kings with the beast.” During the Tribulation, the Council promotes the Antichrist’s agenda and essentially acts in a marriage type of relationship with him. They act together as if joined with the Antichrist leading. As Jesus led his disciples, the Antichrist will lead the Prime Ministers or Presidents.

The EU Commission:

When the European member nations signed the Treaty of Rome, they agreed to hand over some of their powers to a higher authority called the Commission. As the EU’s executive arm, it acts as an overseer of the EU Treaties, and upholds them. Members of the Commission represent the interests of the Union as a whole. The size of its staff is comparable to the US Department of Commerce.

The Commission, a non-elected body, is comprised of representatives from each of the member nations. The Commission has a president who sits among the Council of the European Union (or “kings”). He is responsible for the major decisions and laws that move the EU forward into the international arena as a single political and economic entity. Former Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt suggested changing its name to the “European Government”, calling the present name of Commission: “ridiculous” because of its governmental powers. Coincidentally, the Commission’s headquarters are located in Brussels with the President’s office and the Commission’s meeting room based on the 13th floor of the Berlaymont building.[94]

The Commission President’s position fits the description of the “little horn” in Daniel for he stands among the ten horns or prime ministers and unlike the kings which head nations, he has no nation beneath him, he heads the federation. The horn signifies a relatively new position on the world stage which fits the EU Commission. The Scriptures provide specific details concerning the Antichrist’s authorities. The political seat he holds must allow him the powers cited in the prophetic writings.

The EU Commisson presidency provides the Antichrist with the powers outlined in Scripture—His position must allow him a minimum of a seven-year term

Daniel 9:27 states: “Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week,” i.e., seven years. The seven-year Tribulation begins with the signing of a peace treaty with Israel. The Antichrist is in power before the Tribulation begins. No leader signs a treaty on the day of his election. The Council of Ministers appoints the Commission President to a five-year renewable term. They make these appointments in years ending in four and nine.

He will become strong with a small number of people

Daniel 11:21, 23, states: “And in his place shall arise a vile person, to whom they will not give the honor of royalty; but he shall come in peaceably and seize the kingdom by intrigue. And after the league is made with him he shall act deceitfully; for he shall come up and become strong with a small number of people.” Some say these passages refer to Antiochus IV Epiphanes, a ruler of ancient Greece, reputed as a famous persecutor of the Jews. While he represents a prototype of the final world ruler; this prediction describes how the Antichrist comes into power. [95]

The people do not elect the Commission President. The Council of Ministers consults with the European Parliament, and nominates the person they intend to appoint to the Commission presidency. This nomination, subject to a vote and the approval of the European Parliament, concludes by the Council of Ministers’ appointment. The “small number of people” refers to this close-knit group of EU bureaucrats who place him in power. It may also signify his being a prime minister from one of the smaller EU countries. To date, European Commission Presidents have held prior EU posts such as officials from one of the Member States and even former prime ministers.

During the 2009 nomination of the first EU Council President, journalists noted that EU leaders strategized picking someone from a small country with little international power instead of a charismatic heavyweight. As the EU chose former Belgian Prime Minister Herman van Rompuy as the new Council President and Britain’s Catherine Ashton for the post of EU High Representative a headline reported, “Unknown duo chosen a new faces of Europe.” The idea is that a low key leader will be more effective in achieving consensus among so many leaders of the various nations than a well-known charismatic one. According to the Associated Press: “for EU leaders to pick a boss they can all live with, they must strike the right balance between big countries and small, east and west, socialists and conservatives, perhaps male and female. They must manoeuvre between proponents of a strong Europe and those who fear it—eurocentric’s and euroskeptics, in the local parlance.”[96] The EU will select the leader who the Bible deems as the Antichrist in the same manner.


Revelation 17:12-13 tells us: “And the ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have received no kingdom as yet; but they receive authority for one hour as kings with the beast, these are of one mind, and they will give their power and authority to the beast.” This verse describes the relationship of the ten kings to the Antichrist. They both strive for the same goals. One entity does not exist without the other. The Council of The European (formerly Council of Ministers) give their strength and power to the Commission. Without the member nations that hand over their authority to the Commission, there would be no European Union. Several articles in the EU Treaty reflect their having one mind. Article 162 states: “The Council and the Commission shall consult each other and settle by common accord their methods of cooperation.”

The Scriptures are unprecedented in their accuracy and detail. Although written 1,900 years ago, one Bible verse epitomizes the contents of two treaties in just 14 words. “These shall have one mind and shall give their power and strength unto the Beast.” Over and over, one reads of the Commission’s and Council Ministers’ simultaneous role. Peter Ludlow, the founding director of the Centre For European Policy Studies think-tank in Brussels, referred to the Commission-Council relationship as a “partnership.”[97] Of the EU’s institutions, the Commission and the Council (of Ministers) represent the leading authorities. The Court enforces EU laws, and the Parliament acts as a forum with some legislative powers.

He will be both President and foreign minister Signing treaties with other nations

The Commission negotiates treaties, making agreements with other nations and with world organizations. It makes recommendations to the Council of the European Union i.e. the Council of Ministers, which authorizes the opening of negotiations and conducts them. Special committees formed by the Council assist the Commission. The Commission proposes agreements to the Council, which votes by a qualified majority, consults with the European Parliament, and then concludes the agreements. The Commission President thus negotiates and signs treaties with other nations. The Commission can impose sanctions on third world countries. It maintains EU relations with the UN, WTO and all other world institutions. The Council and the Commission take responsibility for ensuring the consistency of all EU policies.

The Antichrist will have a diverse role from that of the ten kings

Daniel 7:24 states: “The ten horns are ten kings who shall arise; from this kingdom and another shall rise after them; he shall be different from the first ones.” As the EU’s executive arm, the Commission’s major responsibility is to oversee EU treaties. It initiates EU laws and policy. Thus, the Higher Authority acts as the lawmaker while the Council of the European Union approves the laws.

His POSITION WILL give him the power to expel three of the kings

Daniel 7:24 continues, “…and shall subdue three kings.” Regarded as the “Guardian of the Treaties,” the Commission can take action against member governments that it believes have violated their treaty obligations. It proposes to the Court of Justice the fines imposed on Member States proven in default under the treaty. Presently, the Union cannot expel a Member, but allowing this action has come under discussion. The Lisbon Treaty amended articles to allow a nation to withdraw from the Union.[98]


Revelation 13:17 tells us: “…and that no one may buy or sell, except one who has the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.” This passage deals with individuals living under the Antichrist’s dictatorship, and extends to persons worldwide. The Commission initiates the Union’s internal market policy and external trade, including that with the US. It determines the guidelines for trade with other countries, as well as for its members within the Union. Thus, the Commission determines with whom it will buy and sell, and how. The Commission also negotiates international trade agreements.


Daniel 7:25 reports: “He shall speak pompous words against the Most High, shall persecute the saints of the Most High, and shall intend to change times and laws.” The Commission introduces EU legislation, carries out decisions, and oversees the enforcement of European laws. With this authority, the Antichrist can easily implement his laws and change existing ones.


Revelation 13:16-17 states: “And he causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their foreheads; And that no one may buy or sell, except one who has the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.” The Commission oversees the research and development of new technologies. It determines which programs and projects will receive funding. The development of new technologies remains an EU priority. The Antichrist will have access to those new technological systems, and the power to authorize their implementation.


Revelation 13:15 tells us that “he was granted power to give breath to the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast to be killed.” The Antichrist kills those who do not worship him—a common trait of most dictatorships. Dictators reign from political positions that provide them with complete authority. The Commission’s authorities are not balanced by either the Court of Justice or the Parliament. The European people do not elect its members, although it is the EU’s executive arm, making it a non-democratic institution.

Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, in a major speech in Bruges, Belgium, assailed the idea of a supernational European State. In an address to the European Parliament in Strasbourg, France, Jacques Delors had predicted that by the mid-1990s, the EU would develop “an embryo European government.” Thatcher referred to these possible developments as “a nightmare” that would create “bureaucratic centralism” in the EU. She also warned: “We fought two world wars to make the world a safer place for democracy. Here we are preaching more democracy to the old Communist Soviet Union and ourselves practicing less democracy and more bureaucracy.”

During Thatcher’s Prime Ministership, she stood as a strong opponent of a federal Europe and represented the lone ranger among the other members of the European Council. In her later years she gave speeches against a European superstate. Mrs. Thatcher stated that a United States of Europe will endanger world peace. Thatcher uttered her strongest statement when she called the European Federalist project, “a nightmare.” She asked: “Were it to come about does anyone suppose that such a power would not soon become a rival to America? Thatcher then affirmed: “If this new Europe were not to follow the path to separate great power status, it would be the first such power in history to renounce its independent role.”[99] Margaret Thatcher saw from the beginning that the Commission held too much power in the institutional power balance. She understood that this amount of centralized power can lead to a dictatorship. While she never directly stated these words she used other lighter terms which place the Union’s structure in a similar sphere.

Maurie Duverger commented in L’Express of Paris, reprinted in World Press Review, that:

After 1992, nearly 80 percent of economic regulations will be enacted by the EU in Brussels, not in the capitals of the Member States. That means that decisions will be taken away from parliaments elected by universal suffrage and handed over to a political system that will largely escape the grasp of such parliaments. Europe invented democracy. But the more Europe unites, the more democracy is whittled away. As national powers are gradually reduced by the growth of a supra-national power, citizens will be chagrined. [100]

Former EU European Parliamentarian David Martin, commenting on the EU’s “democratic deficit” and need for institutional reform, stated: “If the EC was a state and applied to join the Community, it would be turned down on the grounds that it was not a democracy.”[101] Tony Benn, one of the most prominent figures in postwar British politics, and a longtime Labour Party member, affirmed: “The European Community is entirely undemocratic. It is run largely by commissioners who are not elected and cannot be removed. The Council of Ministers is the only legislative body in what’s called the ‘free world’ that meets in secret.”[102]

Secretiveness is a common characteristic of dictatorships. Certain EU legislation is fashioned in a secretive, undemocratic fashion. The Belmont European Policy Center stated that: “Unfortunately, the EU Treaty contains certain provisions, which govern Co-decision Procedure…having the effect of making the legislative processes unnecessarily secretive and prima facie inconsistent with the principles of democratic government.”[103] This report emphasized the secretiveness of Council of Ministers meetings, which echoes throughout several foreign affairs journals and articles.

The Antichrist’s federation will have secret agendas. Amazingly, when the Antichrist takes his position as President of the European Union Commission, he will have the platform for his dictatorship. Of all the Institutions, the Commission holds the greatest powers, and the other EU governmental bodies do not balance its authorities. The former journal

European Affairs stated: “At present the European institutions are upside down. The only institution with democratic legitimacy on a European scale, the European Parliament, has consultative powers only. The most dynamic body, the one that has the power to get things moving, is arbitrarily appointed and accountable to only one: the Commission of the European Communities.”[104]

The American Free Press upon Estonia’s admission into the EU quoted former Estonian Prime Minister Edgar Savisaar, and others as comparing the EU with the Soviet Union. “The forced propaganda of the European Union is reminiscent of the Soviet Union’s methods and brainwashing,” Rolf Parve, wrote in Kesknadal, the weekly paper of the Center Party.[105] “Moscow and Brussels differ in one point,” Professor Igor Grazin, one of the leading anti-EU voices in Estonia says: “The Soviet Union theoretically allowed nations to leave the union. Brussels is creating organs, however, which would kill that idea in the bud.” Savissar compared the “big bureaucratic system” of the EU with that of the Soviet Union. Currently, the EU is regarded by several politicians as a superstate, and they state this derogatorily.

According to Wikipedia: “a superstate is an agglomeration of nations and or/states, often linguistically and ethnically diverse under a single political-administrative structure. This is distinct from the concept of superpower, although these are frequently seen together. It is also distinct from the concept of empire where one nation dominates other nations through military, political, and economic power, as in the Roman Empire, although and empire may also be a superstate, as in ancient Persia, India and China.[106]

His Kingdom will be divided and will involve many men

Nebuchadnezzar’s vision in Daniel 2:28-45 illustrates the Beast’s complexity. The Bible states that the fourth kingdom is “strong as iron,” and “breaks in pieces and shatters all things,” Daniel adds that there is weakness amidst its strength. Daniel 2: 41-43 records:

Whereas you saw the feet and toes, partly of potter’s clay and partly of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; yet the strength of the iron shall be in it, just as you saw the iron mixed with ceramic clay.

And as the toes of the feet were partly of iron and partly of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly fragile.

As you saw iron mixed with ceramic clay, they will mingle with the seed of men; but they will not adhere to one another, just as iron does not mix with clay.

The iron and clay which makes up the image’s toes do not mix. The iron legs have power to break in pieces and crush all that opposes the Beast. The Bible states that clay represents the seed of men. The potter’s clay signifies a divided kingdom and the complexity within this kingdom—iron is firm, clay is brittle. The kingdom divides at the legs into feet and toes mingled with clay. John F. Walvoord, in his book Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation, discusses this passage and relates the various interpretations from well-known Bible expositors. A. C. Gaebelein states that “monarchies and clay represent democratic rule.” Lutheran Hebrew Old Testament scholar Johann Karl Friedrich Keil argues that “it is all the means employed by rulers to combine the different nationalities, a sort of intermarriage.” Walvoord concludes that this diversity, “whether this refers to race, political idealism or sectional interests,… will prevent the final form of the kingdom from having any real unity.”[107]

The vision depicts an analogy of the European Union’s institutional structure as it exists today. One iron leg represents the EU Commission, while the toes symbolize the Council of Ministers. The toes mingled with clay represent the sovereign nations who still hold elections and rule their countries while handing over specific powers to the EU Commission. Clay, or the democratic electoral process, conflicts with totalitarian rule. The Scriptures stand unprecedented in their accuracy. One must pay tribute to those Bible scholars who successfully interpreted prophetic passages while there no telltale signs in world affairs manifested. Some Bible Eschatologists teach that the Beast has ten toes which represent the ten nations because the Scripture refers to the feet of the image and feet have five toes a piece thus ten toes. The Scripture does not specify the number of toes which can be many.

Dwight Pentecost sited Kelly’s observation who that: “There will be, before the age closes, the most remarkable union of two apparently contradictory conditions—a universal head of empire, a separate independent kingdom besides, each of which will have its own king; but that one man will be emperor over all these kings… God has said they shall be divided.…In virtue of the iron there will be a universal monarchy, while in virtue of the clay there will be separate kingdoms.”[108]

Europa the EU’s website elaborates by stating about the EU’s institutions:

The European Union (EU) is not a federation like the United States. Nor is it simply an organization for co-operation between governments, Like the United Nations. It is, in fact, unique. The countries that make up the EU (its ‘Member States’) remain independent sovereign nations but they pool their sovereignty in order to gain a strength and world influence none of them could have on their own. Pooling sovereignty means, in practice, that the Member States delegate some of their decision-making powers to shared institutions they have created, so that decisions on specific matters of joint interest can be made democratically at the European level.

While the nation’s pool their sovereignty, conflict and disunity arises as each nation responds protecting its own culture, people and industries.

The EU is a kingdom divided. While linked by the Treaty of Rome, each government still holds autonomy. The Member States speak their own languages and retain identity with their individual histories and cultures. EU citizens elect the leaders of the EU Parliament and Council of Ministers, and clay (i.e., the seed of men) represents this democratic practice. The EU’s motto is “united in diversity,” which literally can be the plaque underneath the image of toes mingled with clay.

Due to the Union’s many languages, which numbers 23 official languages, EU officials must make sure that all 27 Member States understand the legislation. They provide interpretation at many hundreds

of meetings held every week. Twenty-five percent of university graduates employed by the Commission directly engage in language work. In the smaller Community institutions, this figure can be as high as 70 percent of graduates. Along with each new member accepted into the European Union, this number increases.[109] The EU Parliament is the biggest employer of interpreters in the world employing 350 full time and 400 free-lancers when there is higher demand.[110]

Further magnifying the Union’s diversity are each nation’s differing governments and politics. Although the Union refers to the nations as Member States, they are separate sovereign countries. Some of the nations hold grievances with other nations, for historical or economic reasons. This world power will never have any real unity while it is both united and divided. In examining EU citizens’ views and gripes toward other Member States, this division further intensifies. Nevertheless, Scripture tells us that this world power will be dreadful and terrible and exceedingly strong (Dan. 7:7).

These facts have caused some to believe that the EU will never have any real unity or strength. What the European Union is seeking to do has never been done in the world’s history. Separate sovereign nations are joining to become a single economic and political unit. The Bible spoke about this in ancient history. In our day we will see it happen.

We know from Scripture that the European Union federalists will attain economic and political union. The ideal of retaining each member state’s government, language, and culture within this federation will be the weakness amid its strength.

The Vice President of the Commission

The Lisbon Treaty created the position called High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy which in actuality will serve as the European Union’s Foreign Minister. The Former position of High Representative merged with the European Commissioner for External Relations to produce the new Foreign Minister position. The rejected Constitution called the position, Union Minister for Foreign Affairs. The Minister would also be a Vice-President in the Commission. [111]

The European Parliament

The Parliament directly represents the people of Europe and links to the toes on the image in the book of Daniel. As with all other EU institutions, the EU parliament has evolved since its inception. In 1974, the Heads of Government agreed to permit direct elections. In 1979, the EU held the first direct elections. Although the EU Parliament is the second largest democratic electorate in the world, second to India, but unlike most national parliaments, the EU parliament does not have legislative initiative. The Parliament’s 736 members, elected every five years by voters in all Member States, have significant power over budgetary matters. They scrutinize, draft EU legislation, question the Commission and Council of Ministers on their conduct of EU affairs, and debate topical issues.

Acting as a check upon the Commission, Article 140 of the Treaty of Rome requires Commissioners to appear before Parliament to respond to questions. The Commission submits an annual report of its activities to the Parliament. The Commission is required to resign as a body if the Parliament adopts a motion of censure against it. Of the four attempted motions of censure, none succeeded.

A majority of Parliament must approve international treaties—save certain trade agreements. In many other areas the Parliament may amend laws, unless the European Commission and all members of the Council object. The Parliament may ask the Commission to propose laws, and may challenge acts of the Commission or Council in the Court of Justice.

The Council must consult the Parliament on who heads the Commission, and must approve the choice of a new team of Commissioners. The EU Parliament compares to the US Congress with its President, which the people elect for two and a half year terms acting as its speaker. [112]

Some end time watchers reported on the European Parliament Presidency as the possible launching pad for the Antichrist, assuming this President led the Union. The Union’s institutional structure comprises of five presidents: the Council’s, Parliaments, Court of Justice’s, Court of Auditors and the Commission. Of the five, the Commission President heads the European Union.

The Court of Justice

The Court of Justice, located in Luxembourg, is comprised of 27 judges, one from each member state plus one other, assisted by 8 advocates-general. The Council of the European Union appoints the judges and advocates-general for six-year renewable terms. The judges elect the President of the Court of Justice for a renewable term of three years. The President presides over hearings and deliberations, directing both judicial business and administration. The EU’s Court parallels the US Supreme Court. It enforces EU treaties, determines the interpretation and implementation of Union legislation, and resolves conflicts between Union and national laws. Basically it makes sure that the Member States effectively apply the laws. Union law (based on the Treaties of Rome) and national law of the individual member countries now intertwine. Its decisions attracts more and more of the national courts’ attention. Court decisions strengthen EU institutions and promote EU policies. Verdicts reached by simple majority are binding on all parties, and are not subject to appeal.[113]

The Court of Auditors

The Maastricht Treaty established the Court of Auditors as the fifth institution of the EU. The Court of Auditors examines the accounts of all of the Union’s revenues and expenditures. One member from each EU member state and a President, make up the Court. The Court has no judicial functions. It is rather a professional external investigatory audit agency. The Court checks if officials implement the budget of the European Union correctly, and ensures that EU funds are spent legally and with sound management. A staff of approximately 800 auditors, translators and administrators supports the Court.[114]

The European Council

The European Councils held their first meeting in 1961 and formalized them after 1974. These brought together the Commission President and the leaders of the EU countries in deciding political guidelines for the Union. The Council has no formal executive or legislative powers, it deals with major issues and meets about four times a year in Brussels. The Lisbon Treaty made the European Council a full-fledged European institution. It is headed by a President. Elected by the Council for two and a half years; the President prepares the Council’s work, ensures its continuity and works to secure consensus among member countries. The position is a non-executive, administrative role. The highest political body of the EU, it is chaired by a member of the Council of the European Union formerly known as the Council of Ministers President. He can call meetings beyond the four that are formally required to take place. Lisbon gave the Council greater say over a variety of EU related matters. While the Commission and Council of the European Union are two separate institutions that work together, the European Council brings these two groups together as one institution. [115]

The European Central Bank

Established in 1998 and modeled on the German Bundesbank, the bank which was once independent from any European or national institution is now a governmental institution of the European Union. The Governing Council, the supreme decision making body of the ECB takes decisions on monetary policy, interest rates and reserves of the ESCB along with other matters. The Union only allows the President of the European Council, the President of the EU Commission and members to attend its meetings. Governing Council members represent the interests of the Eurozone as a whole.

Also Within The Institutional Structure

The Economic and Social Committee represents the views and interests of EU nationals.

The Committee of the Regions ensures the respect of regional and local identities and prerogatives.

In addition the EU has other bodies that play specialized roles, the European Investment bank, European Investment Fund, European Ombudsman, European Data Protection Supervisor, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, European Personnel Selection Office and the European Administrative School.[116]

The False Prophet

Revelation 13:11 tells us that John saw another beast, but this beast comes out of the earth vs. the Antichrist’s empire, which rises from the seas. He has two horns like a lamb but speaks as a dragon. The Bible describes in Revelation 12-15:

And he exercises all the authority of the first beast in his presence, and causes the earth and those who dwell in it to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.

He performs great signs, so that he even makes fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men.

And he deceives those who dwell on the earth by those signs which he was granted to do in the sight of the beast, telling those who dwell on the earth to make an image to the beast who was wounded by the sword and lived.

He was granted power to give breath to the image of the beast that the image of the beast should both speak and cause as many as would not worship the image of the beast to be killed.

While the Beast rises out of the sea as a giant monster the False Prophet in contrast comes out of the earth like a lamb and possesses two horns. The “False Prophet” might be a spiritual leader, his designation as prophet and his comparison to a lamb signifies this. Since the Antichrist abolishes religion, he may act as a spiritual occultist. Hitler consulted occultists during his time in power. His possessing two horns might mean that he holds a leadership position in addition to his position in the Antichrist’s federation.

The False Prophet can rise from the EU Commission holding the title of Vice President of the Union. This Prophet has similar powers of the most powerful Biblical prophets: Elijah and Elisha. Both raised someone from the dead and performed great miracles. The False Prophet breathes life into the Beast’s image, which is either a statue or an actual human clone of the Antichrist. God made man in his image and in the same wording the Bible states that this replica is the image of the Beast. Antichrist might use the science of cloning to try to deceive the people that he can create life. God allows the False Prophet the power to breath life into the image so that it speaks and the world worships his likeness. [117] His clone fits the description of the “abomination of desolation” that stands in the holy place (Matt: 24:26, Mark: 13:14).

All who do not worship the image of the Beast, Antichrist’s henchmen will kill. Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon foreshadows the Antichrist and is one of the titles given to him. He leads the first world empire seen in Daniel’s dream image and represents the head of gold. As the Antichrist whose little horns grows to the host of heaven, (Dan. 8:10) the Scriptures depict Nebuchadnezzar as a tree whose height also reaches the heavens (Dan. 4:11, 20). For seven years God gives Nebuchadnezzar a mental illness that makes him act like an animal (Dan. 4:15-16). Similarly, the Antichrist reigns as a Beast for seven years.

Like the Antichrist, he sets up a golden image which stood 60 cubits tall and six cubits wide, i.e. 66. Babylonian officials played music and commanded those who heard the music to fall down and worship the golden image. Those who refused to worship the image soldiers cast into a fiery furnace. As with the Antichrist the King of Babylon required all nations and peoples to worship the image (Dan. 3:7.) Daniel and two of his friends refused to worship the idol. Soldiers cast them into the furnace and they survived and one like a son of God walked amongst them in the furnace, which soldiers heated seven times hotter than usual. As Daniel, the tribulation saints will experience the captivity under Babylon as the Jews did the year Jeremiah predicted the invasion. At this time the EU functions as the dictatorship described in Scripture.

In reviewing the EU’s undemocratic institutional structure which places too much power in the European Commission, and the Commission Presidency which will allow the Antichrist all of the powers outlined in Scripture, one can only stand in awe at the accuracy of the Bible.


  1. Op. Cit. European Union Treaty, p. 82.
  2. “Europe: Rings-Doves and Openness,” Economist, 22 August 1992.
  3. Andrew Willis, “Eastern States Counter EU’s Secretive Nomination Process, ”EU Observer, November 13, 2009, http://euobserver.com/9/28985
  4. Wikipedia Contributors, “European Commission,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=European_Commission&oldid=325819644 (accessed December 6, 2009)
  5. John F. Walvoord, “Prophecy Knowledge Handbook,” Wheaton: Victor Books, 1990, pp. 268-270.
  6. “Unknown Duo chosen as New Face of Europe,” Euranet: European Radio Network, November 20, 2009 http://www.euranet.eu/eng/Archive/News/English/2009/November/Unknown-duo-chosen-as-new-faces-of-Europe

“Europe Unity Tested by Talk of President,” Associated Press, November 15, 2009

Stephen Castle, Steven Erlanger, “Belgian Prime Minister Picked as European President” International Herald Tribune, November 19, 2009

  1. Peter Ludlow, “Maastricht and the Future of Europe,” Washington Quarterly, Autumn 1992, pp. 120, 124, 126.
  2. “Treaty of Lisbon: Taking Europe Into the 21st Century: A More Democratic and Transparent Europe: , Europa.eu, http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/glance/democracy/index_en.htm

Christopher Bollyn, “Estonians Wary of European Union,” American Free Press, November 19. 2003, http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1065

  1. “World Affairs: Western Europe,” Encyclopedia Britannica, p. 444. Stephen Prokesch, “Thatcher Will Leave the House of Commons but Plans to Keep Speaking Out,” New York Times, 29 June, 1991. “Quotes,” EUROCOM Bulletin, June 1996.
  2. Maurice Duverger, “The Evolving European Parliament,” World Press Review, September 1989, p. 32.
  3. “Quotes,” EUROCOM Bulletin, “August/September 1990.
  4. Tony Benn Interview by Kent Worcester, “Europe’s Democratic Defecit,” World Policy Journal, Fall 1991, p. 741. See also George Ross, “After Maastricht,” World Policy Journal, p. 507. See also Stephen Woddard, “The Lessons of the Vote in Denmark,” New Federalist, March 1992, p. 3.
  5. “From Luxembourg to Maastricht, 100 Critical Days to Maastricht,” p. 46.
  6. Alaine Lamassoore, “Three Houses, One Home,” European Affairs October/November 1992, no. 5, p. 21.,
  7. Wikipedia contributors, “President of the European Commission,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia,http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_the_European_Commission&oldid=325347588 (accessed December 15, 2009)
  8. Wikipedia contributors, “Superstate, “Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia,” http:en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Superstate&oldid=325729983 (accessed January 5, 2010)
  9. Op. Cit. Walvoord, pp. 70-71.
  10. Op. Cit. Dwight Pentecost, pp. 319-320.
  11. Richard Hay, “The European Commission and the Administration of the Community,” European Documentation periodical 3/1989, Luxembourg: Official Publication of the European Communities, May 1989, pp. 21-22.
  12. For more information see Wikipedia contributors “European Parliament,” Wikipedia, The FreeEncyclopedia,http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=European_Parliament&oldid=324812904(accessed December 9, 2009)
  13. Wikipedia contributors, “High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia,http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=High_Representative_for_Common_Foreign_and_Security_Policy&oldid=325763093(accessed December 6, 2009)
  14. “European Parliament: The Appointment of the Commission President and the Rest of the Commission,” Europa.eu http://www.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/public/staticDisplay.do;jsessionid=27BC70E7D1F26252ED0CE49E68F1235F.node1?id=146&language=en
  15. For additional commentary on EU institutions see Seth Elliot, “The European Parliament,” Europe, June 1990, p. 8. See also “Talking Shop Become Hyper-Market,” Economist, 1 February 1992, p. 50. See also Europe, November 1989, p. 40, and Emile Noel, Working Together: The Institutions of the European Community, Luxembourg, 1988, p. 38.For more on Court of Justice see Wikipedia contributors, “European Court of Justice,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia,http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=European_Court_of_Justice&oldid=325957550(accessed December 10, 2009)
  16. For more on see Wikipedia contributors, “Court of Auditors,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia,http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=European_Court_of_Auditors&oldid=326156770 (accessed December 7, 2009)
  17. For more on see Wikipedia contributors, “European Council,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia,http:en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=European_Council&oldid=324262075(accessed December 6, 2009“What is the Difference Between the “Council” and the “European Council,” Folketinget.dk,http://www.folkentinget.dk“Q&A What are the EU President and Foreign Policy Jobs,” Reuters November 19, 2009, Valentina Pop, “New Treaty Will Not Create ‘One Phone Number’ for Europe,” EU Observer, November 18, 2009 http://euobserver.com/9/29010
  18. “European Union Institutions and other bodies,” Europa.euhttp://europa.eu/institutions/index_en.htmWikipedia contributors, “Institutions of the European Union,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia,http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Institutions_of_the_European_Union&oldid=325971759 (accessed December 15, 2009)
  19. Susan Anderson, “The Cloning of Human Beings” University of CT: August 10-15, 1998 Boston, http://www.bu.edu/wcp/MainBioe.htm



The Empire: Chapter 5


Former Harvard Professor Samuel Huntington speculated in the 1990’s that “the EC if it were to become politically cohesive, would have the population, resources, economic wealth, technology and actual potential military strength to be the preeminent power of the 21st century.” Cornelius van der Klugt, while he chaired Philips, affirmed: “If we organize ourselves, Europe will grow faster than the US and Japan combined.” The EU is in the process of building its empire. According to Scripture, the EU will become the most powerful empire the world has ever known. EU bureaucrats purpose to transform the EU into a political world power. Former French President François Mitterrand stated: “From now until the turn of the millennium, we have ten years to win the race for Europeans. No institution should escape this critical examination, not the European Community, NATO, the Council of Europe or the CSCE. All should play their part.” Former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl declared: “I am convinced this is going to be the decade of the Europeans.”[59]

One motive for European unity is to reclaim the limelight that virtually all of its member countries enjoyed during earlier periods of history. At the start of the Cold War, the US and Soviet Union became the leading world powers. Europe suffered the greatest share of the war’s destruction. America aided in the rebuilding of Europe and provided for its defense through the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Although Europe and America stood alongside each other as strong allies, Europeans harbored ill feelings concerning certain American policies. Some Europeans desired a significant place on the world stage.

At the end of World War II, the European dream was reborn, and during the Cold War it crept along. Charles de Gaulle stated in his Memoirs that “Europe by confederation of its nations, can and must be for the well-being of its people, become the greatest political, economic and military and cultural power that ever existed.”[60] From the mid- to late 1980s, a spark rekindled, and the fall of the Berlin Wall added fuel to the fire. The end of the Cold War and the beginning of the New World Order marked a new era for Europe.

The First Step to Political Union

The completion of the 1992 Common Market acted as the first step toward political union. The EU aimed to become an economic power on equal footing with the US and Japan. This proclamation underscores their ambition for attaining superpower status, as many of the member nations had in their history. With the completion of the 1992 program, an economically united Europe became the world’s largest market and largest trader. Edward Heath, former British Prime Minister and an ardent federalist, affirmed: “All history tells us that economic reform is followed by political reform and that political power follows economic power.” The Soviet Union and the United States demonstrated this. It will be the same with the European Community.”[61]

Many individuals view the EU as a solely economic venture among European nations. Skeptics doubted that the EU would ever work together on an economic scale, let alone a political one. Peter Linton, a Brussels-based American consultant, warned that: “You [had] better be ready for the integration process that is moving ahead faster and farther than anyone has realized.”[62] He added that many Americans have yet to grasp the political significance of the process, and to take it very seriously. As evidence of the magnitude of the EU’s potential for superpower status, Lester C. Thurow, MIT’s best known economist, declared: “In the past half century, the world played by rules written mostly by Americans; in the next half century, the world will play by rules written mostly by Europeans.[63]

While natural disasters are occurring with greater frequency, events on the international scene have experienced more dramatic changes in a shorter span of time than at any previous time in history. As a result, some experts now say that “a year is a long time in history.” In three years’ time, the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Empire collapsed, and Germany reunited, marking the end of Communism and the Cold War, and the beginning of the New World Order. For the first time, an international coalition fought a war in the Middle East. The Israeli-Arab Peace Conference began. Islamic Fundamentalism, resurgent nationalism, and many internal conflicts around the globe emerged. During this time, the European Union signed its treaty on political union.

With the rapid changes sweeping Europe, the Union decided it was time to “renew their vows, the marriage contract of the twelve.” The EU’s response to these changes was to accelerate integration within the EU itself. The revolutions in Eastern Europe turned 1992 from a time of economic reform into the beginning of a political transformation. The European Union would remain the stable, solid core around which Europe would rebuild itself. During an EU summit meeting in 1989, EU leaders declared that “at this time of profound and rapid change, the Community is and must remain a point of reference and influence. It remains the cornerstone of a new European Architecture.”

In 1990, former European Commission President Jacques Delors told the European Parliament that the Community would move fast toward full political union, a full-fledged EU foreign policy, and deep institutional reform.[64] He felt that events in the East and the danger of resurgent nationalism underscored the need for closer EU political integration. Delors believed that these events made it “impossible…to separate the Community’s economic role from its political one.”[65]

Those in the Union feel that the EU is “now perceived as a major power and is expected to be a big-league player.” During Jacques Delors, EU Commission presidency, he took advantage of every opportunity to strive for the unification of Europe. Concerning the Gulf Crisis, he commented, “It is a unique change for this Community to make the new qualitative leap which will make (it) the cornerstone of the greater Europe of tomorrow and…an actor of stature equal to its responsibilities on the world stage.”[66]

It seemed that whatever the event, European Union leaders called for the EU to take a greater political role in the world. These proclamations underscored their ambitions and role within the Union to help it evolve into a leading superpower. This was after all their intentions from early on in the Union’s formation.

One Money: The ECU

To be a truly single market with political clout in the world, Europe needed a single currency. The single most political act that the EU embarked on in addition to forming the Common Market was the decision to have its own currency. Political ambitions prompted the adoption of a single currency. Unionists viewed monetary union as the catalyst that would transform Europe’s economic union into its political union.

Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, former president of France and founder of the annual G7 summits, stated in an interview that the creation of the single currency would “be seen by people as a major political advance.” He believed that monetary union would “induce a move toward a more organized political Europe.”[67]

Former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl asserted that the accords signed in Rome would ultimately lead the continent to political union. He went on to state: “One thing is certain, when this Europe … has a common currency from Copenhagen to Madrid and from The Hague to Rome, when more than 350 million people live in a common space without border controls, then no bureaucrat in Europe is going to be able to stop the process of political unification.”[68] Former French President François Mitterrand declared: “With a single currency (and other factors), Europe will have the means to affirm itself as the world’s main power…It is not that we have ambitions to dominate, but together, we are already nearly the main commercial power in the world…together, on all markets in the world we will be at least as strong as the United States or Japan.” [69]

In 1979, the European Monetary System began to function. The EMS kept EEC currencies within a fixed exchange rate structure. At the same time, the twelve member nations strengthened and coordinated their economic and monetary policies. European leaders decided in 1989 that all currencies will join the exchange rate mechanism (ERM) of the European Monetary System (EMS) on July 1, 1990.

The EU bears striking similarities to the Old Roman Empire and added one more by having their own currency. The Economist even noted:

“So Europe’s future lies with monetary union? Perhaps, but this also a step back to the past. The Roman Empire remember had a single currency.”[70]

In 1987, the Belgians minted the first silver coins, aimed at the collectors’ market only. Imprinted on the coins were twelve stars, symbolizing the nations of the European Union, and the bust of Emperor Charles V. He was born in the Belgian town of Ghent, and was crowned head of the Holy Roman Empire in 1519. Europeans chose Charles V for the first ever European Currency Unit (ECU) because of the striking geographical similarity between the Common Market and the Holy Roman Empire.[71]

Former Commission President Jacques Santer made monetary union a priority while he was president-elect in 1994. Despite the skeptics’ negative views, Santer showed no signs of wavering. He firmly stated: “EMU is coming as decided and planned.” Santer affirmed: “The euro would be a strong currency.” He summed up the purpose for the single currency when he stressed that “European countries can only be sure of making themselves heard on world monetary affairs if they have a single currency as powerful as the dollar and the yen.” Santer believed that the “euro will be a counterweight to the US dollar in the international financial system.” Santer was convinced that the euro will give the Union political status; he stated that “in the years ahead it will be interesting to see how the euro will reinforce the European Union externally.”[72]

The European Central Bank and the Launch of the Euro

EU leaders determined that the launch of the euro would occur in three stages. The first stage occurred in 1990 when currencies joined the exchange rate mechanism (ERM) of the European Monetary System (EMS) in, 1990. The second stage two called for the creation of the European Central Bank. Based on the German Bundesbank, it is now one of the most important central banks and is responsible for monetary policy covering the 16 Member States of the Eurozone. The EU established it in 1998.

On January 1, 1999, the euro became legal tender. On July 1, 2002, national currencies ceased to be legal tender. Euro bills and coins became the traded currency. Andrew Crockett, while he was general manager of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in Basel, stated: “Monetary union in Europe holds the promise of profound change in international finance. The economies sharing the euro could face the world as the largest single currency area and the largest trading bloc.” Fred Bergsten, a leading US international economist who heads the Washington-based Institute for International Economics, believes that the “single currency in monetary union will become a fully equal partner of the United States in all economic terms.” US finance officials are beginning to worry about how the single currency will affect the dollar’s role as the world’s dominant currency. Bergsten predicted that because the euro belongs to the world’s second largest economy, “it will thus immediately become the world’s second key currency.”[73]

In 2002 China’s finance minister Xiang Huaicheng, commented that his government should consider buying more euros as soon as possible, so as to not be overly reliant on the US dollar in its foreign exchange reserves. China considers the euro important, and believes that it will someday be on equal footing with the US dollar. Xiang Huaicheng stated that “it is inevitable that the euro will become some countries’ reserve currency.” The euro has already become a key currency for trade.[74] The euro will increase the Union’s clout in world markets. The euro will develop into a global reserve currency, and will alter the power relationship between the US and Europe on monetary and fiscal issues. It will challenge the dollar’s role as the world’s key currency eventually overtaking it. A later chapter covers this in detail.

The Treaty on Political Union

In April 1990, France and Germany launched the idea of a new Treaty on Political Union that would include foreign policy. That month, after a one-day summit meeting in Dublin, “The Community firmly, decisively, and categorically committed itself to political union,” stated Charles Haughey, the Irish Prime Minister at the time. On December 15, 1990, the Council of Ministers met in Rome at an Intergovernmental Conference on Political Union (IGC).[75] One year later in December 1991, at Maastricht, the Netherlands, the conference convened.

Maastricht’s most solid achievement was the firm commitment to establish economic and monetary union (EMU) involving a single currency governed by a European Central Bank by 1999, which it accomplished. Along with monetary union, the treaty established the beginnings of a common defense component which would evolve with later treaties. Article J.4 of the Treaty on European Union added: “The common foreign and security of the Union, including the eventual framing of a common defense policy, which might in time lead to a common defense.” It paved the way to the creation of a distinct political identity. The Maastricht agreement marked the first step in adding a political dimension to the EU, and transforming it from an economic venture into a political reality. An objective of the Maastricht Treaty was for the EU to “assert its identity on the international scene…through the implementation of a common foreign and security policy.” The Maastricht Treaty, a 189-page document, allowed the EU to forge common foreign and defense policies for the first time. Former French President Mitterrand affirmed: “For the first time in their history, the Union will act together in foreign policy.”[76]

Prior to Maastricht, the EU acted in the area of foreign policy through European Political Cooperation (EPC). This was the EU’s process of consultation and common action among its members in the field of foreign policy. An EPC meeting brought together the Member States’ highest officials, their foreign ministers, and the EU Commission. The confidential telex system (coreu) linked the twelve foreign ministries of the Member States, the EPC secretariat, and the Commission. It provided rapid and secure communications, and reduced the need for holding special ministerial meetings. Through its single, coherent approach, EPC aimed to maximize its influence in international affairs.[77] Maastricht turned EPC into something more than a consultation club; it laid the foundation for a real government. The 1992 Maastricht Treaty changed the name of the European Communities to the European Union and gave the EU the formal title of “Union.”

The Economist, commenting on the treaty, stated: “Believers in a federal Europe insist that the treaty lays down the main elements, if only in embryo, of a future European government, a single currency, common foreign and defense policy, a common citizenship and a parliament with teeth. It is just a matter of waiting they believe, for history to take its course.”[78

Alan Sked, who chaired the Anti-Federalist League, made similar observations and brought out additional points. He stated in The European, a European newspaper that existed during the 1990s and provided excellent coverage of the evolving European Union, that after Maastricht:

The Commission is preparing to become the government of Europe, with Jacques Delors or his successor as executive president. He himself proposed such a scheme to the European Parliament in January 1990, and on June 4, 1992 the former Italian Foreign Minister, Emilio Columbo, introduced … an outline Constitution for the European Union, drawn up by four professors. Chapter 4 of this simply stated: The Commission is the government of the Union....The Community is almost a state already. It has its own flag, its own anthem, its own driving license, its own diplomatic service, its own parliament, and its own supreme court. Maastricht will give it its own bank, currency, police force, data bases and army. A Committee of the Regions will be set up to help suppress nation states. … All of Europe’s leaders…know exactly what is being planned: the creation of a centralized superstate. [79]

The EU leaders agreed to meet again in 1996, to work out a second treaty on political union. They hoped that the next treaty would complete the process that Maastricht started.

The Amsterdam Treaty

In the summer of 1996, EU leaders met and concluded the intergovernmental conference that led to the signing of the Amsterdam Treaty. The treaty did not accomplish what many had hoped. US leaders could not agree on the issues that needed reorganization. This treaty was supposed to make many internal changes so that the Union could enlarge to include new members. The treaty created a representative to speak for the Union on foreign policy issues; the High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy which acted as a junior foreign minister. The Treaty of Amsterdamsigned on October 2, 1997, entered into force on May 1, 1999. It amended and renumbered the EU and EC Treaties, and EU leaders looked forward to meeting again immediately after the turn of the millennium. The Amsterdam Treaty strengthened Union’s powers in foreign policy and judicial cooperation.

The Nice Treaty

EU leaders met and negotiated the Treaty of Nice and signed it on February 26, 2001, as an amendment to the existing treaties. The Nice Treaty overhauled the institutions of the European Union in preparation for a union of twenty-seven Member States rather than fifteen. This treaty also provided the EU with a military structure and staff. Most of the changes agreed upon at Nice concerned power sharing within the European institutions as the Union expands. The treaty, capped the number of seats in the European Parliament and the size of the commission, two of the European Union’s leading institutions. The next chapter discusses them in further detail. The Treaty of Nice prepared for enlargement and added more competencies for the EU including employment policy and a common foreign and security policy to cement the Union’s political union.

The Laeken Declaration

On December 14 and 15, 2001, the European Council met in Laeken with the purpose of providing impetus to increase the momentum of integration. They adopted a declaration of their intention to achieve a simpler union, and one that would have more presence in the world. They initiated a convention run by Federalists V. Giscard d’Estaing, G. Amato, and Jean-Luc Dehaene to write the Constitution of the Union—which, unlike the US Constitution, would become the final treaty, encompassing all of the previous treaties. By October of 2002, the convention presented a draft treaty for the Union. Laeken addressed the transition to euro coins, enlargement, internal market issues, the September 11 attacks, and the Union’s policies on combating terrorism, including their actions in Afghanistan and a declaration of their position in the Middle East. The Laeken Declaration asked: “What is Europe’s role in this changed world? Does Europe not, now that it is finally unified, have a leading role to play in the new world order, that of a power able both to play a stabilizing role worldwide and to point the way ahead for many countries and peoples?” Laeken also issued its “Declaration on the Operational Capability of the Common European and Security and Defense Policy,” and provided teeth to the military structure organized at Nice.

Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher referred to the decisions made at Nice and Laeken as “one of the most ambitious political projects of our times.”[80] It should be noted that this “ambitious political project” began at the moment of the EU”s inception, for the primary aim of EU leaders has always been a political one, and those who viewed the EU as nothing more than an economic bloc are uninformed.

The Lisbon Treaty

In 2003, the EU drafted its Constitution and in 2004-2005, the EU Council approved the European Constitution (Treaty) and the Member States voted on it and rejected it. The European Council met in Lisbon for a new EU reform treaty (instead of a European constitution.) In 2007, EU leaders signed the Lisbon Treaty, which entered into force on December 1, 2009. The European Constitution merged into the Lisbon Treaty. The Lisbon Treaty amended previous EU treaties and is more modest than the previous constitutional project. The Charter of Fundamental Rights, which covers freedom and speech and religion, will legally bind 25 of the 27 EU Members. Britain and Poland obtained an opt-out.

Lisbon made changes to the EU institutions. The European Central Bank gained official status of being an EU institution along with the Council of Europe and the euro became the official currency of the Union. The Lisbon Treaty also renamed leading institutions. The High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy created by the Amsterdam Treaty was promoted to Vice President and Foreign Minister of the Union along with other changes to help the 27 member union run smoothly, efficiently and to move it forward politically.[81]

The EU Army

In order for the EU to become the powerful world empire outlined in the Scriptures, it must have a militia. The Antichrist’s army conquers and treads down parts of the world. It lays siege to Israel, and assists in killing all who do not pay homage to the Antichrist.

Since 1946, several European nations have attempted to create military alliances. In 1948, the Brussels Treaty Organization (BTO) formed, but was absorbed by NATO in late 1950. In 1952, the newly established European Defense Community (EDC) attempted too much too soon, and it collapsed. In 1948, European leaders signed the Brussels Treaty—a modification of the EDC. It resulted in the Western European Union, which came into being in Paris on October 23, 1954, and ratified by all members in London on May 6, 1955. Its members included Britain and the six members of the EU. The WEU underwent significant changes.

In 1984 the European defense and foreign affairs ministers agreed to “reactivate” the WEU and harmonize the members’ views on key issues. In 1987, the WEU Council adopted a “Platform on European Security Issues” and declared its intention to develop a “more cohesive European defense identity.” During the 1987 oil shipping crisis in the Gulf, the WEU dispatched military forces—a sign that its vision of a cohesive identity had, in fact, become reality, due to the speed of world events, the WEU gained renewed interest. The end of the Cold War caused German unification, the end of the Warsaw pact, and uncertainty regarding NATO’s role. Prompted by the crisis in the Gulf and by German unification, which meant a larger, more powerful Germany and an uncertain NATO, the EU members decided that their union should include defense. Other potential threats include international terrorism, political instability in North Africa, and threats from the USSR, China, and the Middle East. Some suggested that the WEU merge with the EU.

At the time, Luxembourg’s Foreign Minister Jacques Poos argued that the Gulf Crisis illustrated the urgent necessity of establishing a common European foreign and security policy. A spokesman for former French president Mitterrand advocated: “Whatever the problem, our answer is the same, more Europe.”[82] The WEU admitted a host of new members in the mid 1990’s. These included Greece and the non-EU, NATO member countries of Iceland, Norway, Turkey, Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, Austria, Finland, and Sweden. The European Council met in Cologne in June of 1999 and decided on a common policy on Russia which was the first use of the Common Foreign and Security Policy and adopted the declaration on Kosovo. In relation to the European Security and Defense Policy, the Council declared that the EU must have the capacity for autonomous action, backed up by credible military forces, the means to decide to use them, and a readiness to do so, in order to respond to international crises without prejudice to actions by NATO.” In 2000, the European Council at Nice established the decision making bodies (Political and Security Committee and a Military Committee reinforced by a Military Staff) and a crisis reaction force of sixty thousand soldiers.

In May of 2001, leading members of the EU’s newly established military organizations, high-ranking officials and military personnel from the various Member States, and members of several European military and political think-tanks met in Berlin for a colloquy where they established the EU’s security concepts and risks. Over four hundred participants from over thirty countries attended and all discussed security issues that would affect Europe and the EU’s development of its own military. Professor de Wijk of the Royal Military Academy in Breda summed up the colloquy’s purpose when he stated:

At the same time, the US must accept the EU as an equal partner. We may have different views, but in the final analysis we share the same historical and cultural background and seek to protect the same values and interests. Moreover, only a military capable EU can help defend common EU-US interests.

Indeed, as the EU has global interests, the EU should develop capabilities with a truly global reach. I am very much against a division of labour where Europe sees to Europe and the USA sees to the rest of the world. For that reason, the security concept of the European Union must contain guidance for the development of power projection capabilities which can be deployed worldwide. In practice, a EU security concept should deal with the following questions: how to link the EU’s military capabilities to its political objectives? Where and when the EU will make use of its military capabilities? What kind of operations will be conducted? How these operations will be conducted? What kind of military forces are required to conduct these operations?[83]

Although the Amsterdam Treaty gave the WEU an integral role in giving the EU an independent defense capability, playing a major role in the Petersburg tasks in November 2000, WEU Ministers met in Marseille and agreed to begin transferring the organization’s capabilities and functions to the European Union, under its developing Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP).

In January 2002, the WEU’s Security Studies Institute and the Satellite Centre transferred to the EU and became the European Union Institute for Security Studies and the European Union Satellite Centre. The Nice Treaty removed the role given to the WEU in the Amsterdam Treaty.

The European Defense Agency is a continuation of the work of the Western European Armaments Organization (WEAO) and the Western European Armaments Group (WEAG). It represents the transference of their functions from the WEU and to the EU framework, and thus continues the decommissioning of the WEU.

The European Defense Agency (EDA) is an agency of the European Union headquartered in Brussels. Set up in July 2004, it is a Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) body set which reports to the Council of the European Union.

The Lisbon Treaty scrapped the WEU and kept the mutual defense clause of the Treaty of Brussels as a basis for EU mutual defense arrangement. The Treaty of Lisbon states the following: “The common security and defense policy shall include the progressive framing of a common defense policy. This will lead to a common defense, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides.”

In February of 2009, the European Parliament voted in favor of the creation of Synchronized Armed Forces Europe (SAFE) as a first step towards a true military force. An EU directorate will direct SAFE with training standards and operational doctrine. SAFE created an EU “Council of Defense Ministers” and a European statute for soldiers governing training standards, operational doctrine and freedom of operational action. SAFE is based on voluntary participation and will lead to the synchronization of the European forces. SAFE aims to develop an integrated European security structure. There will be civil and military capabilities in the member countries’ reach.

According to the November 17, 2009, Times Online, Italy will push for the creation of a European Army after the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty. According to the article, Franco Frattini, the Italian Foreign Minister, said that the Lisbon Treaty established “that if some countries want to enter into reinforced co-operation between themselves they can do so.” This agreement existed with the euro and the Schengen accords on frontier-free travel, and a “common European defense” will take the same approach. Mr. Frattini suggested that if there was a European army one nation can send planes, another tanks and another armored cars. He said this is the idea of a European army. [84]

The EU’s army continues to evolve and will evolve into the eventual powerful military the Scripture’s forecast. The Lisbon Treaty added the necessary foundation for the EU’s military evolution.

The EU and the Nations of the World

The common market is having such a colossal effect on the continent of Europe that all European nations want some form of associate status with the European Union. Even Russia expressed a desire to join. The Union is forming association agreements with the remaining European nations that do not hold EU membership. These nations will enact common market legislation. Some have linked their currencies to the ECU without having any say in EU laws. As this occurs, the EU’s sphere of influence broadens beyond its existing members. The EU is like a giant octopus; its long tentacles reach into the rest of Europe and beyond.European leaders established the EFTA, or European Free Trade Association, whose members included Austria, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland, in 1959. In 1984, the Luxembourg Declaration created a free trade area embracing the eighteen nations of both the EU and the EFTA. In 1990, the EFTA and EU foreign ministers opened formal negotiations to create a “European Economic Space,” where goods, services, capital, and people would flow freely between the countries of both groupings. The EEA represented the world’s biggest free trade area, with 380 million consumers. It accounts for 46 percent of world trade. In 1994, European leaders established the European Economic Area. It allows the EFTA countries to participate in the European single market without joining the EU. Since Austria, Finland and Sweden jointed the EU in 1995, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway are its remaining members.

On May 7, 2009 the EU inaugurated in Prague the Eastern Partnership. It provides an institutionalized forum for discussing visa agreements, free trade deals and strategic partnership agreements with the EU’s eastern neighbors. Controlled directly by the EU Commission, its geographical scope consists of Belarus, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. Russia accused the EU of trying to carve out a new sphere of influence. An EU official retorted by stating: “We’re responding to the demands of these countries…and the economic reality is that most of their trade is done with the EU.”

The EU negotiated these various pacts to increase its stature and position in the world. According to Stanley Hoffman, Chairman of the Center of European Studies at Harvard: “Clearly the purpose of the whole effort is not merely to increase wealth by removing obstacles to production and technological progress, but also to increase Europe’s power in a world in which economic and financial clout is as important as military might.”[85]

In addition, as EU legislation extends into these countries, they will come under the EU’s sphere of influence. They will have to adopt EU laws without any voice in EU government. The Antichrist will easily institute his political policies throughout these nations.

The EEA exists as a regional grouping of nations in a common pact. With the fall of the Berlin Wall, Eastern European countries voiced their desire to join the EU. This event marked the beginning of a political identity for the European Union. Eastern Europe looked to the EU for aid and investment, as opposed to looking towards the US and they wanted associate status with the EU which they more than obtained.

The Euro-Mediterranean Free Trade Area (EMFTA) is a free trade zone still evolving based on the Barcelona Declaration, a framework plan adopted in 1995 through association agreements between Brussels and each state bordering the Mediterranean. The countries participating include Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Syria, Turkey, Tunisia and the Palestinian Authority. The agreement involves trade, investment, and deep political reform which Brussels calls “approximation” of other countries’ legal and political institutions with its own. The aim is a “genuine free trade area as soon as possible.”[86]

The fall of Communism ushered in a New World Order, and thereby paved the way for the revival of the Roman Empire and the fulfillment of the prophecies for the “latter days.” An EU report on Eastern Europe in 1991 affirmed: “The map is being redrawn with the Community firmly at the heart of the new Europe. This Europe is to emerge as a new force in the balance of world power, a fact already recognized by the US of America, Japan, and the Soviet Union.

The Revived Roman Empire

The EU bears many similarities to the Old Roman Empire. European Union leaders such as Former Belgian Prime Minister and candidate for Presidency of the EU Commission, Guy Verhofstadt classify the Union as an Empire. [87]

In September 2007, a reporter asked Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso what type of political entity the Union will be after the Lisbon Treaty is enforced. Barroso responded that the European Union will not be a superstate, that it is a unique organization of free countries that are united, that started to work together in cooperation. He said that the national level is not enough for today’s problems such as climate change. “We are not forming a superstate, there is not such a risk, on the contrary what we are seeing is the formation of something different. The rationale for the reform is keeping the great vision of the founding fathers.” He then called the EU “an unidentified political object, a very successful experiment. In the history of institutions’ we never had such a thing. Sometimes I like to compare the European Union to the creation of empires, because we have the dimension of empires, but there is a great difference from the empires that were created through force, we are the first non-imperial empire, we have 27 countries that decided to work together and pool their sovereignty.” [88]

Geographically, the majority of the EU lies within the Roman Empire’s old borders. The Roman Empire had its own currency and army. It used two languages for everyday communication: Latin and Greek. In the same way, the European Union recognizes French and English. The Roman Empire built roads throughout the whole of its empire. The Channel Tunnel, which links Britain to the rest of the continent, is “the first truly integrated pan-European transport system since the Roman roads.”[89]

The EU’s has its own national anthem, which coincidentally is Beethoven’s “Ode to Joy,” and the melody for the Christian hymn “Faithful, Faithful We Adore Thee.” The EU has a motto,” united in diversity,” and even its own holidays. EU citizens celebrate May 9 as Shuman Day the date that marked the birth of the EU in the same way Americans celebrate the 4th of July.

The EU’s flag mentioned in an earlier chapter, a circle of twelve stars on a blue background, depicts Judeo-Christian symbolism. The stars symbolize the twelve tribes of Israel and the twelve apostles, along with the twelve months in a year, and the Greek myth that speaks of the twelve labors Hercules performed to gain immortality.[90]

The EU Capital

Some Bible scholars believe that Rome will become the headquarters of the final world empire. Although Rome is the city where the EU was established, and was the location of the conference on political union, it is not the capital of the new Europe. The capital is Brussels, Belgium, headquarters of the European Commission. Luxembourg is the financial and legal capital of the Union. The European Parliament meets in Strasbourg, France.

Around the time of Christ, Belgium lay just within the Roman Empire’s northern border. It divided the conquered territory from the unconquered Germanic and Russian lands. In modern times, Brussels is centrally located between the EU, and eastern bloc nations. During the first advent of Christ, the world’s population lived primarily around the Middle East and Mediterranean regions, and Rome was central to the Empire. The final world empire will have a sphere of influence over many more nations.

The Antichrist’s headquarters change after the middle of the Tribulation. Daniel 11:45 attests: “and he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.” Near the time of the end, the Antichrist will move his headquarters to Jerusalem, which, besides being the Holy City, is more central to the world at large. The Antichrist will, at this time, be in control of the Middle East region.

Revelation 13:2 tells us that the Dragon gives Antichrist “his power, his throne, and great authority.” The European Union is evolving into a world power that will act as the launching pad for the devices of Satan. The Antichrist’s reign here on earth will mimic that of Jesus Christ. While society grows more in line with Christ’s warnings and natural disasters increase, the European Union evolves into the final world empire. Former US Senate Majority leader George Mitchell called “the economic integration of Western Europe…the most important event of our times.” The idea of reuniting Europe has existed since the fall of the Roman Empire. The formation of the European Union will end up becoming the single most important attempt in world history.

The Scriptures specifically state that the Antichrist will raise the Community to its pinnacle of power. The Union will not be as powerful at the time of his appointment. From the signing of the treaty, the Antichrist will have three years to bring the Union to its height of power. This does not include his efforts before the start of the Tribulation. The lust for power that presently exists among Unionists provides the Antichrist with an opportune climate to pursue his demoniac ambitions.


  • “Quotes,” EUROCOM Bulletin, four issues: June 1989, July/August 1989, July 1990, December 1990.
  1. Jean-Claude Casanova, “Dealing with Europe: The Dream of the Wisemen,” European Journal of International Affairs, 1991.
  2. Edward Heath, “Britain and the European Community,” Mediterranean Quarterly, vol. 1, no. 1, Winter 1990, p. 23.
  3. Axel Krause, “1992’s Impact on American Business Accelerates,” Europe Magazine, June 1989.
  4. Lester C. Thurow, “Europe Will Write the Rules of Trade,” European Affairs, April/May 1991.
  5. Leigh Bruce, “Europe’s Locomotive,” Foreign Policy, Spring 1990, pp. 69-70.
  6. “Delors Delivers ‘State of Community’ Address,” EUROCOM Bulletin, vol. 2, no. 2, February 1990.
  7. “Quotes,” EUROCOM Bulletin, October 1990.
  8. Robert J. Guttman, “Interview: Valéry Giscard D’Estaing,” Europe Magazine, May 1997.
  9. Stephen Kinzer, “Kohl Calls the Path to European Unity Irreversible,” New York Times, 14 December, 1991.
  10. “Quotes,” EUROCOM Bulletin, January 1992.
  11. “EMU in Motion: 1878 vs. 1992,” Economist, 22 April, 1989.
  12. “Luxembourg: Use the ECU,” Europe Magazine, November 1989.
  13. Santer Sees Expansion to East Near Turn of Century,” Reuters, 12 December, 1994. “Santer Says Single EU Currency by 1999 Is Essential,” Reuters, 16 December, 1994. “Santer Says No Reason to Worry about French on EMU,” Reuters Financial Report, 20 June, 1997. “Focus Davos US Officials See Solid Stable Euro,” Reuters World Report, 31 January, 1998. “EU Sees euro Bolstering Global Political Clout,” Reuters World Report, 30 January, 1998.
  14. Klaus Engelen, “Why US Is Beginning to Worry about the Euro,” European, January 9-15, 1997.
  15. “Euro: An International Currency,” Federalist Debate, Torino, Italy, Year XV, Number 1, March 2002.
  16. “Dublin Summit,” Europe, May 1990.
  17. Bruce Barnard, “Making Sense of Maastricht,” Europe, January/February 1992.
  18. Feld, “European Political Cooperation,” Mediterranean Quarterly, p. 79. See also European Political Cooperation (EPC), Luxembourg: 1988, p. 5.
  19. “Europe: The Deal Is Done,” Economist, 14 December, 1991, p. 51.
  20. Alan Sked, “The Case Against the Treaty: Maastricht Made Simple,” European, 1992, p. 27.
  21. Margaret Thatcher, “It’s Time to Walk Away from Europe,” Financial Times, March 18, 2002.
  22. For more on treaties see The European Constitution Website, which contains information on the various treaties, http://www.unizar.es/euroconstitucion/Home.htm, “Background Briefing: How the Treaty of Lisbon will make the EU more Democratic,” Federal Union, December, 2007, “EU Constitution,” United Press International, November 3, 2009,


Article 1, The Treaty At A Glance, “On 13 December 2007, EU leaders signed the Treaty of Lisbon, thus bringing to an end several years of negotiation about institutional issues.”
http://europa.eu/abc/treaties/index_en.htm,Wikipedia contributors, “European Central Bank,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=European_Central_Bank&oldid=324222667

John Rummo, “Final signature acquired on the Lisbon Treaty,”November 4, 2009
http://www.worldmarketmedia.com/801/section.aspx/489/post/final-signature-acquired-on-the-lisbon-treaty, Rudolf Stohr, “The Growth and Evolution of the European Union,” January 2008, Times of Malta.com, “Highlights of the Lisbon Treaty,” October 20, 2007

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20071020/local/highlights-of-the-lisbon-treaty,Wikipedia contributors, “Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Treaty_establishing_a_Consitution_for_Europe&oldid=324178952

  1. Robert Haslach, “The Western European Union: A Defense Organization in Search of a New Role,” Europe, Jan/Feb 1991. See also Ian Davidson, “Building New Security Structures, View from Europe,” Europe, Jan/Feb 1991. See also Seamus O’Clireac, “Long Term Implications of the Unified European Market: Birth of an Economic Superpower?” Mediterranean Quarterly, Fall 1990.
  2. Assembly of the Western European Union, The Interim European Security and Defence Assembly, “Revising the European Security Concept—Responding to New Risks,” Colloquy Berlin, 2-3 May 2001, Official Record, Office of the Clerk to the Assembly.
  3. Bruno Waterfield, “Blueprint for EU army to be agreed,” Telegraph.co.uk, February 18.2009, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/, EDA Background Information 2005-2009, European Defense Agencyhttp://www.eda.europa.eu/genericitem.aspx?area=Background&id=121
    Stephan Nicola, “EU Dreams of Common Army,” UPI Germany Correspondent, Berlin, March,27,2007,http://www.spacewar.com/reports/EU_Dreams_Of_Common_Army_999.html,Craig S. Smith, “Europeans Plan Own Military command Post” The New York Times, September 3, 2003,http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/03/world/europeans-plan-own-military-command-post.html
    “Italy’s Foreign Minister says Post-Lisbon EU Needs a European Army, The Timesonline.co.uk, November 17, 2009, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6917652.ece

Wikipedia contributors, “Military of the European Union,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Military_of_the_European_Union&oldid=324939563,James Slack, Mathew Hickley, “Now all of our Armed Forces are on offer as part of an EU catalog” April 3, 2009
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1167247/Now-Armed-Forces-offer-EU-catalogue.html, Wikipedia contributors, “Synchronized Armed Forces Europe,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Synochronized Armed Forces Europe &oldid=323985108 and also Wiki:Synchronized Armed Forces, Wapedia,

Bruno Waterfield, “Blueprint for EU Army to Be Agreed, Telegraph.co.uk, Brussels, February 18, 2009, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/4689736/Blueprint-for-EU-army-to-be-agreed.html

  1. “Quotes,” EUROCOM Bulletin, May 1991.see also Wikipedia contributors, “European Economic Area,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=European_Economic_Area&oldid=324160492
  2. “EU eyes Mediterranean free trade area by 2010” Eurativ.com,
    November 2005, http://www.euractiv.com/en/east-mediterranean/eu-eyes-mediterranean-free-trade-area-2010/article-149382
  3. Guy Verhofstadt, “The Financial Crisis Three Ways Out for Europe,” Gütersloh, November 2008
  4. Barrosso: European Union is ‘Empire’ short version, EUXTV, July 10, 2007

Jose Manuel Barroso, Lisbon Treaty: What they Said: Jose Manual Barroso, BBC.co.uk, September 30, 2009

  1. Leigh Bruce, “Europe’s Locomotive,” Foreign Policy, Spring 1990, p. 88.
  2. EU-Forgotten Flag, AP, 24 March 1997.


The Empire: Chapter 4



Bible Scholars agree that the final world power will rule globally. The Scripture states that the entire world worships the Beast and he institutes his Mark worldwide. End time watchers follow developments in globalization and the New World Order. Unfortunately, around this premise many conspiracy theories have arisen teaching that secret societies are planning for world dominion. The Masons, the Illuminati, the Trilateral Commission, the Catholic Church, the Jewish elite, the Bildeburgers are among the groups planning the takeover. Each theory claims to document their facts on insider’s revelations and sound research.

While looking for the secret society, these end-time watchers have failed to discover a European think-tank whose members belong to a political ideological movement which do not operate in secret but out in the open and have influenced the European Union’s evolution. Their teachings provide a blueprint for global rule. These individuals believe in European “federalism”—the ideological term for one-worldism.

The movement began in the late 1930’s in Britain, as a solution to the World War. In this proposed solution, the US federal government’s model would govern on a worldwide scale. The “federalist papers,” which drew their inspiration from English federal thought, inspired many writers and works on the topic from 1910 onward. The Round Table, a well-known political publication, advocated federalizing the British Empire.

In 1929, a New Europe Group proposed a European federation with a common currency, and foreign and defense policies. In 1939, the federalists published the Federalist Union Manifesto. They sought out activists by sending letters to those in the Who’s Who interested in world affairs. Federalists believe that a nation’s sovereignty is artificial, and that there can be no hope for international order while nations act independently. A writer stated that “unless we destroy the sovereign state, the sovereign state will destroy us,” and they envision a world order which limits national sovereignty. They insist that federal union will take the globe’s governments from the nation-state to the world-state, which would be an evolutionary advance.

The ultimate aim of federalism is world government, for they view federalism as the antithesis of totalitarianism. Supporters of federalism proposed that “the long-term aim of Federal Union remains the establishment of a world federation.” Their more immediate aim was “the promotion of a democratic federation of Europe as part of the post-war settlement.”

During these early years, author and lecturer Lionel Robbins sketched the outline of a new world order. He suggested that Europe become a federation of states, consenting to limited sovereignty while pursuing a common trade policy. His proposals foreshadowed what the European Union later accomplished. The formation of the European Community occurred in line with federalist thinking. Although these policies duplicate what occurred in the historical account of the European Union’s formation, the federalists did not initiate its creation.[42] Jean Monnet is responsible for the EU’s formation.

In 1944, the group established the European Union of Federalists (EUF). They associated themselves with the worldwide movement for world federal government. Today in Washington exists the headquarters of the World Federalist Association which in 2004 became the Democratic World Federalists. This group enlists the Hollywood crowd, and is a branch of the liberal left. They embrace Mother Earth rhetoric. Environmental issues, which leaders view as a global crisis, support their argument for international law.

Federalist slogans include “Peace Through World Law,” “One Planet—One People,” and “One Earth Needs World Federation.” World Federalists seek to strengthen the UN as a prospect for world government. They applaud the EU’s endeavors. [43] The European federalists lead the movement by enlisting political leaders and intelligentsia; in addition, they publish sophisticated journals propagating their ideology.

The Federalist Movement, Jean Monnet and the EU’s Formation

When nuclear bombs fell on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, the urgency of the federalists’ desire for action became more intense than ever. For many, this meant action on a world scale. Federalist groups now existed throughout the world. The Federal Trust for Education and Research formed in 1945 in London. The Trust’s activity involved itself with the European Union, as a route to its wider agenda.

Stalin ordered a total blockade of Berlin in 1948, impelling Europeans to unite. That summer, World Federalists held their second congress in Luxembourg. Emery Reves, one of the speakers, began to see European federation as a possible step toward world federation, in line with federalist policy. Federalists endorsed regional integration as “an approach to world federation.” The long-term goal of “world government” seemed less immediate and practical than action on a smaller, more limited front, either in Europe or across the Atlantic.

The federalists sought to improve and strengthen world institutions such as the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank. These globalists ranked first in undertaking the work of turning the UN into an effective world authority. While these efforts failed, Jean Monnet reiterated their vision for the European Union. Federalists viewed the EU as an indirect route to achieve their end.

On April 18, 1951, European leaders signed the European Coal and Steel Treaty in Paris. The treaty’s members included France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. That same year, an editorial in Federal News declared: “Just as European Federalists have rightly said that it will be impossible to build a world federation without first federating Europe, it is now becoming clear that it may not be possible to federate Europe without doing so as part of a wider scheme of federation.”

Federalists declared that Federal Union should not advocate the setting up of any specific federation, but should encourage the establishment of any federations and international organizations that would tend to lead to ultimate world federation.

Monnet, with the Benelux statesman Paul-Henri Spaak and Jean Beyen, worked on a plan for the reformation of Europe, which took clear form in 1955. The foreign ministers of the six member countries met in Messina, Sicily. They launched the process that ended with the establishment of the European Community and EURATOM (European Atomic Energy Community) on January 1, 1958. The six decided to create a specialized community based on the ECSC, (European Coal and Steel Community) for the peaceful development of nuclear energy. At the same time, they decided to remove trade barriers and create a common market in which goods, persons, and capital could move freely. On March 25, 1957, European leaders signed the EURATOM (European Atomic Agency) Treaty and the European Economic Community (EEC) or Common Market Treaty in Rome on Capitoline Hill. The EU’s founders viewed economic union as the prerequisite for eventual political integration.

The EEC’s institutional structure, laid out in the Treaty of Rome, was federalist in character. The resemblance was not coincidental; Altiero Spinelli, an Italian federalist, influenced de Gasperi in the writing of the treaty. He wrote Monnet’s speech for his inaugural address as the first president of the EEC’s High Authority. The widespread acceptance of federalist thinking in the six ECSC countries in the early 1950’s ensured the approval of their logic by politicians and the public.

In 1957, with the signing of the Rome Treaties, the Trust’s European activities expanded. Membership grew, and a wide range of expert speakers became available to the Trust including people from the EU Commission and the member countries. The subjects soon covered such specialized fields as agriculture, financial investment, transport, labor law, and tax. The Trust developed the reputation as a significant organization. One of the speakers, Fernard Braun, a young commission official, later became the Director-General in charge of the program to complete the international market by the end of 1992. [44]

Jean Monnet: The Father of the New Europe

Europeans historically regard Jean Monnet as the father of Europe, the father of the common market. Born in 1888 to a family of wine growers, Jean Monnet long remained anonymous despite his accomplishments. He was neither a politician nor a technocrat. He had no particular expertise in any field, although some experts listed him as an economist.

In 1919, the Treaty of Versailles established the League of Nations. Monnet became the League’s Deputy Secretary General. Europe experienced the devastation of two world wars and faced the dictatorships of Hitler and Mussolini. Economic crisis and unemployment marked postwar Europe, while both the United States and the Soviet Union emerged in much stronger positions. Monnet believed that the countries of Europe should unite to bring freedom and prosperity to their continent. He argued that national sovereignty was outmoded if it prevented Europe from keeping pace with the times in the age of the superpowers.

During the Kennedy era, growth in the EU slackened due to de Gaulle’s nationalism and anti-American sentiments. He called the US, “the unwanted federator of an integrated Europe.” To refute this, Kennedy called for a joint interdependence. In 1963, Kennedy’s speech in St. Paul’s Church of Frankfurt expressed satisfaction with a United Europe. He stated: “It would be a world power, capable of dealing with the US on equal footing in every domain.”[45]

After de Gaulle’s departure, Jean Monnet’s idea of building up the European Union as a partner of the United States gained popularity. European federalists began to consider how a federal Europe might help to build a wider union of democracies, as a step on the long road to world federation. David Barton, in an article in World Affairs, gave a more exact meaning to the term “Atlantic Community.” Essentially, he saw it “as linking militarily, politically and economically large trading blocs or regional groupings.” He believed these would serve as an example for other regions, and could finally lead to a world community.[46]

Although the Federalist Trust focused on the EU, Jean Monnet, its true founder, did not follow a federalist blue-print. In 1976, the European Council made Jean Monnet an “Honorary Citizen of Europe.” In March of 1979, Monnet died. As the European Document entitled “Jean Monnet, a Grand Design For Europe,” states:

His message has the force of all simple ideas. Instead of wasting time and energy in trying to apportion blame for a horrific war, the countries of Europe should combine to bring freedom and prosperity to their continent. The imperative of the age was to bring economies together, to merge interests, to make the means of production more efficient in a world dominated by competitiveness and progress. Monnet’s message went to the root of national sovereignty which he argued was outmoded if it prevented Europe from keeping pace with the times in the age of superpowers.[47]

Federalist Influence in the EU’s Evolution

By 1966, the Trust’s focus shifted toward the Community’s economic, institutional, and political development. Those attending its conferences began to include a wider range of policy-makers and Community watchers. By the late 1960s, the Trust studied ways to improve Community institutions and policy. Federalists began thinking in terms of a common set of foreign, security, defense, and monetary policies.

Many of the staff members of Federal Union regarded European federalism as the first step in establishing a new world system. Most of them later became prominent in their various occupations. Some became members of the EU Commission, some became editors for European affairs journals, and still others held other influential posts. Former French President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing spoke at Federal Trust conferences before his presidency.


• In 1973, Britain, Denmark, and Ireland joined the Community, bringing the number of Member States to nine.

• On January 1, 1981, Greece became the community’s tenth member.

On January 1, 1986, Spain and Portugal became the Community’s next two members, bringing the number of Member States to twelve.


EU countries in the early 1980s suffered high unemployment and low growth. Europe barely recovered from the 1982 recession, unlike the US this sparked renewed commitment. European leaders felt it imperative to reconstruct their economies, to provide a large base for their companies to compete in the global marketplace. Two major decisions helped them to accomplish this goal. First, in June 1985, the Community published a white paper entitled, “Completing the Internal Market.” It contained 285 directives and specific regulations, and assigned each directive an expected date of adoption ranging from 1985 to 1991. The directives removed fiscal, technical, and physical barriers and harmonized product standards, diplomas, insurance and credit regulations, as well as differences in taxation from country to country throughout the Community.

The second major decision, the European Single Act, came into force on January 1, 1987. Under the Act, a yes vote by the Council of Ministers only called for a weighted majority, except in cases involving health and environmental issues. In the past, all decisions made by the Council required voting by unanimous decision. This method slowed the EU’s growth. The EU could now move forward.

In 1987, the Trust examined the idea of a European Security Community. The group’s report proposed that the Union pool their defense forces. The European Union would become the partner of the United States as the European pillar of the Atlantic Alliance. It would seek a common security relationship with the Soviet Union while reforming the United Nations into a more effective peacekeeper. The report views the Union as a kind of world community made up of regional communities, as a stage in the progression toward the more distant prospect of a world government. The Trust produced a set of proposals on how the Community might develop into a Union with federal institutions. They suggested instituting a European federal bank to underpin economic and monetary union. The Trust also proposed a common security and foreign policy. The Union adopted all of these proposals, and they are now Union policy. The European Central Bank under the Lisbon Treaty became an official EU institution.


In 1995, Austria, Sweden and Finland became members of the Union bringing the number of Member States to 15.

In 2004, 10 new countries, the Czech RepublicEstoniaHungaryLatviaLithuaniaPolandSlovakia, and Slovenia, plus the Mediterranean islands of Malta and Cyprus joined the Union.

In 2007, Romania and Bulgari followed bringing the number of EU Member States to 27.


Federalist Ideology

Federalists believe that sovereign nations are no longer able to solve the world’s problems. They regard national sovereignty as a traditional governmental precept of the past. Former NATO General Secretary Manfred Worner stated: “If Europe is to measure up to its new responsibilities—and it has no choice—it must—then it will have to pull itself together rapidly and free itself of outmoded notions of sovereignty.”[48] The Belmont European Policy Centre in Brussels, a European think-tank made this statement: “On May 1950, the Schuman Declaration proclaimed that the so-called sovereign nation state no longer constituted a satisfactory model for organizing relations between European states. Only through pooling specific elements of sovereignty could they prevent further catastrophes and regain their ability positively to influence their nations’ destinies.”[49]

Franz Anderiessen, former Vice President of the EU Commission, declared: “Europe, and the world at large have suffered immeasurably, not least in this enlightened century, from exaggerated ideas of the role of the sovereign states.”[50] The European Commission in part funds the New Federalist, the newsletter of the Young European Federalists. An eminent member of the World Federalists in the United States commented in an essay, which appeared in the newsletter:

The current nation-state system is impractical and, in many ways, a global anarchy…Presently, blind, idolatrous nationalism is the primary force in opposition to world federation. Children at a young age must be taught the importance of loyalty to one’s family, community and homeland… loyalty to one’s planet must also be emphasized. Is there a better way than war and economic coercion to solve the world conflict? Yes, a better alternative is through system of equitable and enforceable world law.

Federalists aim for a new world based on the rule of international law, thus achieving Pax Universalis. To the federalist, one’s loyalty belongs to planet Earth. Urgency accompanies their cause, with the slogan “mankind must unite or perish.” Some members believe federalism is a force that will be unleashed throughout the whole world. They view global unity as the utopian solution to end all wars. Federalists believe that with the collapse of communism, their goal for world government has become a concrete and political aim.

In this age when threats can be global in nature, nations will find no other alternative but to align with one another. Federalism’s precepts have humanistic aims. The New Federalist summed up the ideology for international law in stating that:

Federalism overcomes the cause of war: the division of the world into sovereign states with the world federation, that final stronghold of violence between men, war, will be eliminated: international anarchy will be replaced by the rule of law between states. The world federation will, as Kant taught us, open up a world in which man can consider other men as ends in themselves and in which he can fully and autonomously develop all the capacities that are within him. The world federation will open the history of the human race. [51]

We know from Scripture that the world federation will not open the history of the human race but rather end it. The Antichrist will use this ideology to gain dictatorial control over the world.


Along with the one-world government movement, social, economic, and political trends are bringing about the unification of the globe. Even religion follows the global path through organizations such as the World- Wide Council of Churches.

With today’s technology, no one nation remains isolated. Television satellites, fax machines, and data banks bring many countries together in the transference of information. Technology has made the world a smaller, more unified place. While Globalization is a process, technological developments act as the catalyst that speeds it along. Payment systems of major countries closely interlink. Banks around the globe communicate electronically. The Economist stated: “Today’s economies are interdependent and interconnected. Flows of trade and capital tie countries more closely together than at any time since the 19th century. A recession in one country slows growth elsewhere. One government’s budget deficit draws resources not just from domestic savings but from a global pool of capital that all have to share.”

In addition to economic and financial interdependence, the world is breaking up into regional groupings of nations that act as trade blocs. As twenty to thirty nations form one of these blocs, they become a section of the globe. As the world coalesces into sections, unification becomes a simpler process. Five or six parts of a pie join easily, compared to over 160 pieces of a puzzle. The Great Recession showed the impact of globalization the day the American financial markets plummeted. The European markets followed and caused a ripple effect hitting every major market around the globe. Within days major financial papers reported that the world economy had literally come to a stop.

Global Problems

National problems that have a worldwide impact such as the Great Recession, nuclear arms buildup, the environment, and drugs, have prompted nations to intensify their efforts to work together in their common causes. Banks even unite internationally to fight computer crime and money laundering.

The Earth Summit of 1992 brought together nations from around the globe to coordinate global environmental policy. This Summit involved nearly four times as many countries as founded the United Nations. Maurice Strong, the Secretary General for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, felt that environmental problems such as global warming, the ozone hole, acid rain, soil degradation, and deforestation jeopardized all nations, and because of this he stated that “the world has now moved beyond economic interdependence to ecological interdependence—and even beyond that to an intermeshing of the two. The world’s economic and earth’s ecology are now interlocked—‘unto death do them part,’ to quote one of Canada’s industrial leaders. This is the new reality of the century, with profound implications for the shape of our institutions of governance, national and international.”[52]

World Institutions

During World War II, world leaders recognized the need for international economic institutions. In 1944, political leaders established the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. The General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade (GATT) followed in 1948, along with a new wave of regional organizations. It instituted a code of rules by which countries could trade, as well as a forum for resolving disputes among trading partners. It aimed to liberalize world trade through the reduction of trade barriers, for free trade ensures peace among nations. Nations coordinate their trade policies through the GATT. The European Union advocated an international currency to replace the dollar and the yen, and a new international monetary system to underpin the GATT trade system. The Union stated that the GATT’s ultimate objective is “a single world market.” The European Union proposed the idea of a one-world monetary system in 1986, as an amendment to the GATT.[53]

At the conclusion of the Uruguay Round in April 1994, over 120 countries signed an agreement in Marrakesh, Morocco, that created the World Trade Organization (WTO). The successor to the GATT, it acts as the United Nations of world trade, and continues to liberalize the global market. It began operation in January of 1995.

The UN, founded with 51 Member States, now includes 192. The UN’s peacekeeping role has broadened considerably in recent years. Since the end of the Cold War, the UN has involved itself in the settling of conflicts across the globe. Commenting on this development, The Economist stated: “For the first time the nations of the world, rich and poor, are beginning to cooperate for agreed ends on a scale that hitherto only idealists have even dreamed about.”[54]

Federalists aim to transform the United Nations into a democratic world federation. In 1991, a year before the Earth Summit, thirty-six respected world leaders put forth a document calling for a World Summit on Global Governance. The Stockholm Initiative aims to strengthen the UN so that it can better handle the global challenges of the future. It seeks to adopt a new approach to maintaining and developing international law. The proposed Commission on Global Governance seeks to strengthen the UN or form a new institution for the same purpose. Former European Commission President Jacques Delors suggested that the UN develop a “Council for Economic Security” to rewrite the rules for the global village. Delors saw it as unacceptable that single nations attempt to solve problems that have a worldwide scope.

The idea of having international rules echoes in many foreign affairs journals. Dennis Healy, Britain’s former Defense Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer, stated: “If we are talking about a new world order, I can only see a role for the UN. We can no longer tackle the great problems like environmental pollution, migration and global arms control, on a regional basis. International rules are required, especially when we remember that the population of the world is doubling every 50 years.”[55]

The International Monetary Fund (IMF), founded at the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944, secures global monetary joint action. It enlists 184 member nations. The Conference on Security and Cooperation, created in 1975, enlists 56 nations. Established as a regional organization of the UN Charter, it deals with security, human rights, and trade. Its job includes giving early warning of potential conflicts, improving crisis management, and developing military confidence-building mechanisms. Besides the CSCE, other regional organizations have sprung up since World War II.

End time watchers often look at the UN and various world institutions as the possible launching pad for the Antichrist. These institutions have no governmental powers. No single world institution has the power or capacity to govern the world. When one notes how the EU utilizes these institutions, and its future plans for them, one sees Scripture unfold before their very eyes.

The EU bases its policy and laws on those of global institutions. For areas of policy not covered by any of these organizations, the EU establishes its own regional ones. The Council of Europe deals with human rights, health, migration, law, culture, and the environment. All of these organizations use abbreviated letters or acronyms which are synonymous with the EU. Political leaders are negotiating and signing so many of these treaties that it would require an entire book to list and explain them all.

These treaties form a web over the entire globe. With each new treaty, one more additional strand links nation to nation. Technological advances and infrastructures act as the bonding material holding them all together.

The Cornerstone for Uniting the World

Within the EU, federalists hold key positions, and impact upon the EU’s future direction and policies toward global governance. EU bureaucrats have adopted a federalist blueprint. With EU laws based on those of world institutions, once the EU becomes the world’s leading power, it will lead other nations into global governance. In its mega superpower status, its policies will take precedence on the world stage.

Lucio Levi, the editor of The Federalist Debate, published in Torino, Italy, stated in the July 2001 issue: “A center of power must emerge with the capability of supporting the plan for a world democratic order. The European Union could be such a power.…It is reasonable to believe that Europe will hold sufficient power to relieve the United States of some of their overwhelming world responsibilities, and thus have the authority to persuade them to support the democratic reform of the United Nations.”[56]

Federalists have already mapped out the route the EU will take to achieve world government. A powerful EU will have the greatest voice in world organizations. Most nations will hand over their sovereignty to these institutions. When the EU has sufficient power, it will write the rules for the world. Italy has proposed that in the future the European Union might seek a single permanent seat at the UN Security Council. Germany’s defense minister also supports the EU’s having a single seat on the UN Security Council. These proposals are the first stage of what has yet to occur. The 1999 issue of The Federalist, published in Pavia, Italy, states:

It is as indicated, a question of predicting what type of world equilibrium the birth of the European federation will help to create, and what new forces it will help to unleash. We are all federalists because of our conviction that the founding of a European federation will be an important step forwards on the road towards the creation of a world federation, that it will allow the establishment of more stable, peaceful and open relations between peoples, that it will give the United Nations a more solid basis for action, that it will, through the example which its own birth will set the world, favor the development of new trends toward regional unification and give considerable impulse to the diffusion of the culture of the unity of mankind. And it will do this by mere virtue of its mere existence, and regardless of its governments’ inclinations over foreign policy.[57]

Federalist thought provides the ideological backbone for the European Union. These ideals based on both religious and humanistic thinking or the teachings in the cup of the Whore, provide the Antichrist with a perfect platform for world rule.

The Coming One-World Government

A single world system is not new to man. Genesis records the historical account of the Tower of Babel. Mankind in ancient times united their efforts to build a tower to reach into the heavens. God declared that “now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them,” and confounded their language. Give man too much power, and he becomes dangerous. A unified world with a single world government will be a modern-day Tower of Babel.

It is paradoxical that as the world grows more populated, it becomes more of a single unit. To date, we see the skeletal form of a one-world system, and can speculate on its continuing evolution. The world is breaking up into regional economic groupings. Pat Buchanan commented that “in the New World Order, rules are set by west and east globalists.”[58] These policy makers think in terms of international law as evidenced by the European Union federalists. World institutions will gain more power, and govern in their respective areas with the Antichrist as head of the European Union leading the world into oneness.

A one-world government will become man’s final attempt at creating a utopian society that excludes God and deifies man. The one individual who will advocate and pursue this ideology will be man’s greatest enemy. The world federation will not “open the history of the human race,” but rather end it.

The process of globalization is occurring through the natural order of events. At present, the world is fragmented. The European Union will act as the cornerstone for uniting the world, in the same way Jesus is the “chief cornerstone” of the church. None of this is coincidental; we know that the Antichrist’s empire here on earth mimics the Kingdom of God.


Richard Mayne and John Pinder, Federal Union: The Pioneers: A History of Federal Union, London: Federal Trust for Education and Research, 1990, pp. 3-4, 8-13, 23, 49, 51, 57, 62-63, 73, 76, 86, 109, 112-113, 119, 124. See also Benjamin B. Ferenez and Ken Keye, Jr., Planethood: The Key to Your Future, Coos Bay: Love Line Books, 1991, pp. 23, 35.

  1. Wikipedia contributors, “World Federalist Movement,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Federalist_Movement&oldid=331194908 (accessed January 19, 2010).
  2. “Jean Monnet: A Grand Design for Europe,” European Documentation, Periodical 5/1988, Luxembourg: Office of Official Publications of the European Communities, p. 7. See also Merry and Serge Bromverger, pp. 9-11, 224-225.
  3. Op. Cit. Richard Mayne and John Pinder, pp. 112-113, 119, 124.
  4. Op. Cit. “Jean Monnet: A Grand Design for Europe,” pp. 5, 7.
  5. Op. Cit. Richard Mayne and John Pinder, pp. 143-145, 210-212.
  6. “Quotes,” EUROCOM Bulletin, February 1991, p. 3.
  7. “From Luxembourg to Maastricht, 100 Critical Days to Maastricht,” Brussels: European Belmont Policy Centre, August 1991, p. 6.
  8. Frans H.J.J. Andriessen, “The Integration of Europe: It’s Now or Never” European Affairs, No. 6, December 1991, p. 7.
  9. Publius II, “Introduction to World Federalism,” Brussels: New Federalist, No. 2, 1992, p. 18.
  10. Jim MacNeill, Pieter Winsemius, and Taizo Yakushiji, Beyond Interdependence: The Meshing of the World’s Economy and the Earth’s Ecology, New York: Oxford University Press, 1991, p. 4.
  11. “GATT towards a New Round,” European Community Economic and Social Committee, Brussels, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1986, pp. 14, 33.
  12. “New Ways to Run the World,” Economist, 9 November 1991.
  13. Dennis Healy, “Pax Americana Is a Dangerous Illusion,” European Affairs, August/September 1991, p. 44.
  14. Lucio Levi, “Globalization and a World Parliament,” Federalist Debate, Year XIV Number 2, Torino, Italy, July 2001.
  15. Francesco Rossolillo, “European Federation and World Federation,” Federalist, Year XLI, Number 2, Pavia, Italy, 1999.
  16. Pat Buchanan, “The US of Europe Versus the US of A.,” New York Post, 20 July 1991.


The Empire: Chapter 2


The Antichrist

The Tribulation is a seven-year period of wars, plagues, famines, earthquakes, and disasters. It ends in the Battle of Armageddon, and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Part of the earth’s judgments happen through a leader whom the masses empower. The Scriptures profile this dictator’s reign of terror. Due to his anti-God, anti-Christ policies, Evangelical circles customarily refer to him as the Antichrist. The Bible mentions this title only once in the Scriptures. The Devil enters this man’s body and wreaks havoc on the world. His reign ignites the Battle of Armageddon (Is. 14:12; Ezek. 28:3-4).

Evidencing this leader’s significance, over thirty titles relate to him in both the Old and New Testaments. These include:

Ps. 5-6 The Bloody and Deceitful Man

Ps. 10:2-4 The Wicked One

Ps. 10:18 The Man of the Earth

Ps. 52:1 The Mighty Man

Ps. 53:3 The Enemy

Ps. 74:8-10 The Adversary

Ps. 111:6 The Head of Many Countries

Ps. 140:1 The Violent Man

Is. 10:5-12 The Assyrian

Is. 14:2 The King of Babylon

Is. 14:12 The Sun of the Morning

Is. 16:4-5; Jer. 6:26 The Spoiler

Is. 22:25 The Nail

Is. 25:5 The Branch of the Terrible Ones

Ezek. 21:25-27 The Profane Wicked Prince of Israel

Dan. 7:8 The Little Horn

Dan. 9:26 The Prince That Shall Come

Dan. 11:121 The Vile Person

Dan. 11:36 The Willful King

Zech. 11:16-17 The Idol Shepherd

2 Thess. 2:3 The Man of Sin

2 Thess. 2:3 The Son of Perdition

2 Thess. 2:8 The Lawless One

Rev. 9:11 The Angel of the Bottomless Pit

John 5:43 Another Coming in His Own Name

Dan. 8:23 The King of Fierce Countenance

Matt. 24:15 The Abomination of Desolation

Dan. 9:27 The Desolator

Ezek. 28:12 The King of Tyre

Jer. 4:6-7 The Lion

Jer. 4:6-7 The destroyer of the nations

Is. 14:12 Lucifer[15]

1 John 2:18, identifies him as the Antichrist, a liar who denies the Father and the Son. Rev. 13:1 refers to him as “the Beast,” and later in the passage names him 666. The number six, translated from the New Testament Greek into English, means “vex,” or “curse.” Seven represents God’s number of perfection. The triple six represents the unholy trinity, with the Devil acting as God. The Antichrist, whom Satanists call the son of Satan, mimics Jesus Christ. The False Prophet who the Bible predicts will comes onto the earth and performs miracles to get the masses to worship the Beast, mocks God’s Holy Spirit. The unholy trinity are named in Scriptures as “The Dragon,” “The Beast,” and “The False Prophet.” Unlike previous dictators, Satan himself possesses the Antichrist. He obtains the world’s respect by bringing the world prosperity, until the day he declares himself a god and demands worship for himself alone. Once the Antichrist establishes himself as a deity his evil side manifests itself.

Satan provides the Antichrist with a “great seat of authority,” i.e., the political position he will hold. Similarly, the Bible presents Jesus sitting on a throne. Daniel refers to the Antichrist as a “prince,” with a lower-case p, while capitalizing the Prince of Peace. The Antichrist’s “great seat of authority” becomes the highest position of the most powerful government to exist. Despite its earthly might, it does not compare to the heavenly kingdom of Jesus Christ. The Antichrist’s reign on earth will completely contrast our Lord’s. Unlike Christ, whom the masses rejected, the Antichrist they will accept. In John 5:43, Christ affirms: “I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive.” Jesus came to save, Antichrist comes to destroy. God’s kingdom contains numerology such as the numbers 7 and 12 and 40. The final world power contains numerology, numbers 4, 9, 13, 666, which a later chapter discusses.

The Four Beasts of Daniel

Daniel and John, in the Revelation, disclose the area and identity of the final world power. Daniel’s vision details the four world empires that ruled the Middle East region throughout history (Daniel 7 and 8). Daniel states in 7:2-7:

“I saw in my vision by night, and behold, the four winds of heaven were stirring up the Great Sea. And four great beasts came up from the sea, each different from the other.The first was like a lion, and had eagle’s wings. I watched till its wings were plucked off; and it was lifted up from the earth and made to stand on two feet like a man, and a man’s heart was given to it. And suddenly another beast, a second, like a bear. It was raised up on one side and had three ribs in its mouth between its teeth. And they said thus to it: Arise, devour much flesh! After this I looked, and there was another, like a leopard, which had on its back four wings of a bird. The beast also had four heads, and dominion was given to it.

After this I saw in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, exceedingly strong. It had huge iron teeth; it was devouring, breaking in pieces, and trampling the residue with its feet.

Of all of the beastly visions, the fourth beast disturbs Daniel the most, and he inquires of an angel who stood by the vision, and the angel identifies the four beasts as four kingdoms that will rule on the earth. Daniel specifically asks about the fourth beast, which he describes as “different from all the others, exceedingly dreadful, with its teeth of iron and its nails of bronze, which devoured, broke in pieces, and trampled the residue with its feet” (Dan. 7:19). In the remainder of the chapter, Daniel continues to describe the fourth beast, including details of the evil leader who commands it. The angel Gabriel further elaborates on the kingdoms and provides their identity. The lion signifies the Babylonian kingdom. The bear represents the second or Medo-Persian empire. The third, the leopard or cheetah, compares to Greece. Daniel describes the fourth beast at the end of its history and, unlike the preceding empires, it conquers the entire world. Dan. 7:23 states: “The fourth beast shall be a fourth kingdom on earth, which shall be different from all other kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, trample it and break it in pieces.”

The fourth beast possesses the combined strength of all the previous governments, and holds the political seat of the Antichrist. Dwight J. Pentecost, in his book Things to Come, quotes Gaebelein, who noted that while the first beast has a man’s heart, “it was a beast still,” and the three ribs in the bear’s mouth are Susiana, Lydia, and Asia Minor, which the Medes and Persians conquered. One paw is upraised because “the Persian element was stronger than that of the Medes.” The leopard, which represents Greece, has wings that “denote its swiftness,” and its four heads symbolize the division of Greece into the kingdoms of Syria, Egypt,Macedonia, and Asia Minor. He adds: “God tells us that their moral character is beastly. The lion devours, the bear crushes and the leopard springs upon its prey.”

While the first three beasts compare to strong, fierce animals that prey on weaker species, the fourth beast appears almost mechanical and monstrous. It possesses great iron teeth, bronze fingernails, and ten horns.

Revelation 13, further elaborates on the fourth beast. In addition to his ten horns, he has seven heads, which add to his frightful appearance. The Bible tells us that this beast looks like a leopard with the feet of a bear and it has a lion’s mouth (Rev. 13:2).

The Greek and Hebrew word used for leopard includes the various species and specifies the large spots, which also describe the cheetah. Both the lion and bear reign their territories and exist at the top of the food chain because of their power and fierceness. The leopard, though fierce, is no match for a lion. Leopards are stealth predators and of the three big cats they possess adept climbing skills and protect their kills by running them up trees. Today they are more numerous than lions and cheetahs because of their ability to hide and blend in with their environments. The cheetah, though considerably less powerful than a leopard, surpasses all animals in speed; running at speeds up to 70 miles an hour and reaching high speeds in three seconds. Of the three big cats, the cheetah kills more game than the others but does not always get to eat their kill. Tougher opponents such as lions, leopards and hyenas hijack them.

It is this author’s view that Scripture refers to the Beast having the body of a cheetah and not a leopard as expositors traditionally teach possibly because they failed to analyze the differences in the species. The cheetah does not have the strength of the lion or leopard because it can out run the fiercest predator. Its speed is its power. The leopard strength lies in its stealth from climbing trees and hiding.

The Beast possesses the mouth of a lion, iron legs, bear’s feet and the sleek body of a cheetah which resembles a leopard. The cheetah built for speed has a narrow body, long slender feet and legs, a flexible spine, and bones as light as aluminum. Their paws are less rounded than other cats; their pads are hard, similar to tire treads to help them in fast, sharp turns. Cheetahs have distinctive black “tear stripes” that connect from the inside corner of each eye to the mouth that may serve as an anti glare device for daytime hunt and its claws act as cleats for traction when running, its tail moves as a rudder. The cheetah has a powerful heart, over sized liver and large strong arteries.

In addition, the Cheetahs have distinctive black “tear stripes” that connect from the inside corner of each eye to the mouth that may serve as an antiglare device for daytime hunting Cheetahs have distinctive black “tear stripes” that connect from the inside corner of each eye to the mouth that may serve as an antiglare device for daytime hunting Cheetahs have distinctive black “tear stripes” that connect from the inside corner of each eye to the mouth that may serve as an antiglare device for daytime hunting. Cheetahs have distinctive black “tear stripes” that connect from the inside corner of each eye to the mouth that may serve as an antiglare device for daytime hunting.tear stripes on inner corner of its eyes act as anti-glare device and its small head, flat face and reduced muzzle length allow the eyes to be positioned for maximum binocular vision.

Each of these parts represents the fiercest and strongest attribute of its respective animal. Thus, in possessing the cheetah’s (body) speed, the powerful jaws of the lion, and the crushing feet of a bear along with its long sharp nails, he obtains the combined strength and power of all these animals. The final world power will be both strong and fast in the speed at which it conquers other nations vs. conquering through stealth as a leopard.

The straightforward animal nature of the first three beasts symbolizes the notion that these kingdoms possess an earthy element, but the horrifying and dreadful appearance of the fourth—its iron legs and teeth, its bronze nails, and its many heads and horns—makes it appear demonic, as if it emerged from the pits of hell. The iron on the image represents modern weapons of steel. To Daniel, it appeared as a creature out of a dark fantasy, for it was unlike anything he had ever seen.

The contrast of this beast to the others is further seen in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream image (Daniel 2: 31-41), which symbolizes the four kingdoms and relates their strength to metals. The golden head of the image is Babylon. Its silver arms and chest are the Medes and Persians. Its bronze thighs represent the Greek empire, and its legs and feet are of iron, but the toes have clay mingled in with the iron. According to Scripture, the fourth beast is made of iron because iron “breaks in pieces and shatters all things.” While gold, silver and bronze each possess some esthetic value and pliability, iron’s sole value is its strength. This entity does not merely rule and have dominion; it crushes and breaks in pieces all of the other kingdoms, and its purpose is that of a destroyer and crusher rather than a conqueror which is possible using modern weaponry.

The fourth beast encompasses the same area as the ancient Roman Empire. It rises from the midst of the seas, specifically the Mediterranean (Rev. 13:1). When Daniel foretold Jerusalem’s destruction in A.D. 70, he simultaneously prophesied that the coming prince would come from the area of the Roman Empire. Daniel 9:26 states: “The people of the prince that shall come, shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.” The Romans under Titus in A.D. 70 destroyed Jerusalem.

The Antichrist holds his political position in re-empowered Europe. The final world empire represents a second phase in the Old Roman Empire’s history. According to Daniel 7:24, the fourth kingdom never passes out of existence, but rather continues in some form until its final condition emerges. The Scriptures view the Roman Empire as continually developing until the second coming of Christ. The final world power will possess similarities to the Old Roman Empire. Dwight Pentecost summarizes the purpose of its revival by concluding: “As the Roman Empire had been the agency through which Satan attacked Christ at His first advent, that empire in its final form will be the agency through which Satan works against the Messiah at His second advent.”[16]

Tyrus: A Place of Commerce and Trade

The final world empire is synonymous with international trade. The writings of Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and John in the Revelation evidence this fact. Ezekiel chapters 27 and 28 foretold the destruction of the ancient city of Tyrus, once located on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea. Under Solomon, the Hebrews and the Tyrians had a close alliance. Through trade relations, Solomon obtained supplies from Tyrus for the building of the Temple (I Kings 9:11-14, 26-28; 10:22). This good relationship changed as the Tyrians and neighboring Phoenicians began to buy Hebrew captives from their enemies. They sold them as slaves to the Greeks and Edomites. These acts brought God’s judgment upon the City of Tyrus (Joel refers to it as Tyre), as predicted by the prophets.

Throughout Tyrus’s history, several conquerors invaded it. From the time of Christ up to the Crusades, it was a flourishing city, renowned for the great wealth it derived from dyes of Tyrian purple—extracted from shellfish on its coast. Its present condition is a fulfillment of Ezekiel 26:5, which describes it as “a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea.” It contains fifty or sixty poor families, who live in part by fishing, and is a rock where fishers dry their nets. [17]

Ezekiel chapter 26 records Nebuchadnezzar’s siege of Tyrus. Chapter 27 describes the city’s wealth, and the amount of trade that passed throug its borders. Fourteen verses detail the merchandise, and name the many nations that traded with Tyre.

In chapter 28, literal Tyrus, the city of ancient times, changes to illustrate the Antichrist. The Prince of Tyrus is none other than Satan in a man’s body. Situated in the midst of the seas, he claims that he is a god sitting in God’s seat. He is proud because of his wealth, which he increased through trade. God tells him that he is a man, and not God. Verses 12 to 16, identify the Prince as Satan himself, who was the most prominent angel in all of heaven, and who was cast out by God on the day he sinned.

Son of man, take up a lamentation for the king of Tyre, and say to him, Thus says the Lord God; You were the seal of perfection, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.

You were in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering, the sardius, topaz and the diamond, beryl, onyx, and jasper. Sapphire, turquoise and emerald, with gold. The workmanship of your timbrels and pipes was prepared for you on the day you were created.

You were the anointed cherub who covers; I established you; You were on the holy mountain of God; You walked back and forth in the midst of fiery stones.

You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, till iniquity was found in you.

By the abundance of your trading you became filled with violence within, and you sinned; Therefore I cast you as a profane thing out of the mountain of God: and I destroyed you, O covering cherub, from the midst of the fiery stones.

Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty; You corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor;: I cast you to the ground, I laid you before kings, that they may gaze at you.

You defiled your sanctuaries by the multitude of your iniquities, by the iniquity of your trading; therefore I brought fire from your midst; it devoured you, and I turned you to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all who saw you.

All who knew you among the peoples are astonished at you: you have become a horror, and shall be no more forever.

Verses 18 and 19 describe the Antichrist’s and False Prophet’s judgment at the Battle of Armageddon. God will cast them alive into the lake of fire (Rev. 19:20-21).

Joel foretells the Battle of Armageddon, and names Tyre as guilty of selling his people and robbing the treasures of Israel (Joel 3:4-6). The Antichrist, like Tyre’s king, invades Israel, takes spoil, and persecutes the Jews. Tyrus, as the final world power, obtains its wealth through trade, and its king claims to be God.

To better understand prophecy in Scripture one must consider that the prophetic writings retain continuity from author to author and time does not count as we measure it. In the forecasts events take place all in the same time period. The Scriptures note that certain events will take place in the latter or end of days because the Bible describes ancient and future locations in the present tense. Their beginning, era of notoriety and their end are relayed as if in the same time frame. Although these places have passed out of existence the Bible views them in existence. There exists no differentiation from their end and the people and nations that arrived in their stead as exampled by Tyrus and Babylon.


While the prophet Daniel establishes Babylon as parallel with the final world power and provides many details of its structure; Jeremiah 51 predicts Babylon’s judgment. He prophesizes against the literal land that once existed, as well as its latter- day counterpart. As with Tyrus, whose king God identifies as Satan, God refers to the king of Babylon as Lucifer. The Antichrist is “the King of Babylon.” Isaiah 14:4-6 records his evil rule and conquest:

That you will take up this proverb against the King of Babylon, and say, How the oppressor has ceased! The golden city ceased!

The Lord has broken the staff of the wicked, the scepter of the rulers. He who struck the people in wrath with a continual stroke, He who ruled the nations in anger, is persecuted and no one hinders.

The passage later identifies Satan as the King of Babylon, and describes Satan’s fall from heaven. Isaiah 14:12-17 continues:

How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, you who weakened the nations!

For you have said in your heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will also sit on the mount of the congregation, on the farthest sides of the North:

I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most high.

You will be brought down to Sheol, to the depths of the pit.

Those who see you will gaze at you, and consider you saying, Is this the man who made the earth tremble, who shook kingdoms;

Who made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed its cities who did not open the house of his prisoners?

Babylon was the commercial hub of the Near East. Trade and commerce increased its wealth. The invention of wheeled carts allowed trade to expand from local to foreign commerce. Nebuchadnezzar helped Babylonian businesses by improving the highways. Countless caravans brought to Babylon’s shops half the world’s products. Under Nebuchadnezzar, Babylon became a thriving and prosperous marketplace. Babylon, referred to in ancient times as “a great city,” drew the nations of the Mediterranean world into closer contact.[18]

Like Tyrus, ancient Babylon was renowned for trade. Revelation records Babylon’s fall in the end times. The merchants lament its destruction. The verse reads: “And the merchants of the earth will weep and mourn over her; for no one buys their merchandise anymore” (Rev. 18:11). Revelation 18:15 reiterates: “The merchants of these things, who became rich by her, will stand at a distance for fear of her torment, weeping and wailing.” The world’s nations will prosper from trading with this political power, which acts as a hub for trade. Ezekiel 27:33 confirms: “When your wares went out by sea, you satisfied many people; you enriched the kings of the earth with your many luxury goods and your merchandise.

The Medes and Persians conquered Babylon. The Greeks followed and the Roman Empire came next. The Antichrist emerges from the revived Roman Empire, which becomes powerful through trade and commerce. It makes itself and the world’s merchants rich. Its prosperity extends to the earth’s rulers. Nations will gain wealth by trading with this world power. This prophecy is beginning to see fulfillment with the emergence of the European Union.

The Final World Empire

The European Union is a group of Western European nations that eliminated their trade barriers to form a Common Market. Trade among the Member States moves about freely. As the world’s largest market, the EU is virtually synonymous with international trade and commerce. The Union coordinates more than economic policy; it has instituted a governing body to which the member nations are accountable in certain areas. Many refer to the EU as “the United States of Europe.” The EU has its own currency, flag, and national anthem. The EU’s founding fathers viewed the achievement of economic strength as a prerequisite for attaining political power—the Union’s ultimate aim. The EU aims to become a powerful political player on the world stage.

The Economic Race

Tyrus and Babylon provide age-old lessons in economics. Trade accelerates the economic growth of nations, increasing their wealth and power. Today’s superpowers realize that military might alone will not make a nation great and powerful. Economic strength is key to a nation’s prosperity. At the end of the Cold War, economic wealth replaced military might as the primary goal of the superpowers. The stake is what Helmut Schmidt once called the struggle for the world product, rather than for traditional power—wealth and power have become more closely tied together.[19] For this reason, nations are uniting with one another to become regional trading blocks, to guarantee economic success. This premise underlined the US’s free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico, as well as the formation of the European Union.

Today the EU is an economic powerhouse, with almost 500 million citizens. The EU generated an estimated nominal gross domestic product (GDP) of 18.39 trillion dollars based on purchasing power parity in 2008, accounting to over 22% of the world’s total economic output in terms of purchasing power parity which makes it the largest economy in the world and the second largest trade bloc economy. It is also the largest exporter and largest importer of goods and services and the biggest trading partner to several large countries such as India and China. Of the 500 largest corporations measured by revenue, 178 have their headquarters in the EU.

In addition to becoming the leading place of trade and commerce—a major characteristic of the final world empire—the European Union will become a political power as well. The completion of the 1992 Common Market acted as a first step toward political union. The EU’s objective is to obtain superpower status, as many of its member nations had in their individual histories. According to the Scriptures, this new world power becomes the most powerful political entity the world has ever known.

The European Union’s borders lie within the realm of the Holy Roman Empire of old. Like Babylon and Tyrus, it is renowned for international trade, except it holds the political seat of the Antichrist.

The Arrival of the Antichrist

The Antichrist arrives in the right place at the most opportune time. His astute abilities in national and international finance help him to direct the EU into great prosperity. His genius leads them into superpower status. Ezekiel 28:3-5 deems him “wiser than Daniel” for “there is no secret” hidden from him. By “wisdom” and “understanding,” he accumulates “riches and gold and silver” into his treasuries. Ezekiel concludes: “By your great wisdom in trade you have increased your riches, and your heart is lifted up because of your riches.

Daniel 8:23 describes the Antichrist’s understanding of sinister schemes and his fierce features, and states that he deifies himself (Dan. 11:37). Isaiah 10:13 confirms the Antichrist’s estimation of his wisdom. “For he says, By the strength of my hand I have done it, and by my wisdom, for I am prudent; Also I have removed the boundaries of the people, and have robbed their treasuries; So I have put down the inhabitants like a valiant man.”

The Antichrist’s genius is greater than Daniel’s, whose intelligence surpassed that of all the other prophets and Old Testament patriarchs. Daniel was skillful in all learning, knowledge, and wisdom. He understood science and comprehended the most difficult concepts. Daniel also possessed the ability to interpret dreams and visions (Dan. 1:4,17, 5:11-12).

In addition to having wisdom like Solomon, he possessed the mind of a scholar, scientist, and mathematician. Recognized for his brilliant mind, Daniel served in Nebuchadnezzar’s court as Master over all of the wise men, the consultants to the king. When Darius the Median (the Medo-Persian Empire succeeded the Babylonian) took over Babylon, he appointed 120 princes to rule over the whole kingdom. Presiding over the princes were three presidents, of whom Daniel was first. All of the officials were accountable to him (Dan. 6:1-3). When Cyrus the Persian succeeded Darius, Daniel served and prospered during his reign as well. Daniel acted as chief consultant to kings who ruled two of the four world empires that once existed. The Antichrist’s abilities will enable him to rise to world leadership.

The Antichrist’s Reign

The Tribulation begins when the Antichrist makes a covenant of peace with Israel (Dan. 9:27). His government will agree to act as the guarantor of the nation’s peace. Prosperity follows the first three and a half years after the agreement. The Antichrist raises the EU into a great economic and political world power. Nations prosper through trade and association with him. The Antichrist wins the favor of the masses because he leads the European Union into great prosperity, and all associated nations will prosper.

The Antichrist gains popularity through deceit. The seeming people’s president tells the people what they wish to hear, while pursuing his own diabolical plans. Midway through the Tribulation, the Antichrist changes his pro-peace policy. He receives a deadly head wound, possibly from an assassination attempt. Miraculously, he comes back to life (Rev. 13:3). A terrorist group may murder him due to his pro-Israeli policies. For one reason or another, certain individuals will oppose him.

Zechariah elaborates upon his wound. He describes: “The sword shall be against his arm, and against his right eye: his arm shall completely wither, and his right eye shall be totally blinded” (Zech. 11:17). He will remain blinded in his right eye, and paralyzed in his right arm. The Antichrist’s return from the dead—or near death—instantly increases his notoriety. The Antichrist allies himself with “the False Prophet,” (Rev. 19:20) a member of the unholy trinity. A renowned religious leader able to perform miracles he campaigns for the Antichrist. In this time frame, the Antichrist institutes the Mark of the Beast worldwide. No person can buy or sell unless he wears it.

The Temple Rebuilt

During the first half of the Tribulation, the Jews rebuild the Temple of Solomon according to the exact dimensions described in I Kings, chapter 6. Christ warns the Jews of the “abomination of desolation: spoken of by the prophet Daniel,” indicating the Jewish Temple’s restoration. The abominable act takes place inside the Temple. This desecration prompts the beginning of God’s severe wrath and judgments upon the earth.

Currently, the Dome of the Rock, an Islamic Shrine which houses the foundation stone and a major landmark built in 691 a.d., making it the oldest Islamic building in the world was constructed over the site of the second Jewish Temple destroyed in AD. 70. At present, in Israel a Fundamentalist Jewish movement exists that aims to rebuild the Temple. Within the Israeli government, the right-wing political party, the Temple Mount Faithful, also known as Temple Mount and Eretz Yisrael Faithful Movement wish to relocate the Dome to Mecca and replace it with a third Temple. They intend on constructing the third Temple on the Dome of the Rock and also suggest building a new Temple on the site, in a place that will not interfere with existing buildings. They openly declare that their ultimate goal is the demolition of the al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock, and the reconstruction on their site of King Solomon’s Temple. The Temple Mount is the holiest site in Jerusalem. [20]

Jeremiah foretold the Temple’s destruction by the Babylonians (26:6-12). Daniel predicted the Temple’s desecration by the Syrian king Antichious Euphrates (Dan. 8:8-12). He also foretold Jerusalem’s restoration and rebuilding by Herod and the Temple’s destruction by the

Romans in A.D. 70 (Dan. 9:25). Hosea 3:4-5 foretells the long time the Jews remain without the symbols used in their worship, and without the Temple and how they will return to their God in the latter days.

For the children of Israel shall abide many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or sacred pillar, without ephod or teraphim.

Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the Lord their God, and David their king; and shall fear the Lord and his goodness in the latter days.

Daniel also foretells the desecration of a future third Temple, and the persecution of the Jews by the Antichrist (Dan. 9:25-26)

Before this prophecy will see fulfillment the Jews will erect a new Temple which means that some future event will destroy the mosque and the Dome of the Rock that are on the site. This destruction will either happen from a natural disaster such as an earthquake or by war. Earthquakes have rumbled through the area in the past causing damage to the al-Aqsa mosque.

The Russian and Arab invasion predicted in Ezekiel may destroy the Dome of the Rock located on Mount Moriah. Bible scholars debate the timing of the battle. Some argue the war occurs prior to the Tribulation and others that this conflict takes place during the millennial reign of Christ. Either way we know some event will destroy the existing buildings which will clear the area for the building of the third Temple.


Temple Mount History

• 950 B.C. Solomon completes building the first Temple.

• 587 B.C. Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon destroys Solomon’s Temple.

• 515 B.C. The book of Ezra records the building of the second modest Temple.

• 161 B.C. A Syrian ruler pillages this second Temple.

• 164 B.C. The Maccabees (an Israeli priest and his five sons) recapture the Temple. (The Jewish holiday Hanukkah celebrates this restoration.)

• 37 B.C. to 4 B.C. Herod, King of Judea, triples the area of the Temple Mount in expanse to accommodate an enlarged Temple and other buildings.

• A.D. 70 Roman armies, in a quest to end Jewish rebellion, storm and dismantle the Temple, and hurl its stones over the parapets of the mount. (Today, a remnant of the Temple complex is a portion of the western retaining wall, named the Wailing Wall.) The

Romans forbid Jews from entering the old city of Jerusalem, but eventually permit them to enter once a year “to wail over its stones.”

• A.D. 687 A mosque, the Dome of the Rock, is built there, and remains today. At the southern rim of the platform stands the silver-domed al-Aqsa Mosque. For Muslims, the same place, Haram-al-Sharif, which means Noble Sanctuary, is the third holiest site, after Mecca and Medina. Muslims believe that the prophet Mohammed made a miraculous night journey from Mecca to this place, and from there ascended to heaven.

The Abomination of Desolation: Matthew 24:15, Mark 13:14, Daniel 8:11-14, 12:11-13, 9:26, 11:31, Joel 1:6

Within Solomon’s Temple, the “most holy place” (I Kings 6:16-36) housed the Ark of the Covenant. This sanctuary was the place God dwelt among the Israelites (Exodus 25). The Ark (made of shittim wood overlaid with gold) housed the two tablets of the Ten Commandments, Aaron’s rod, and manna. Upon the Ark’s mercy seat, the sprinkled blood of sacrificed animals atoned for all of Israel. It stood as a symbol of the blood of Jesus Christ, which would one day be shed and remit the sins of the world. The priests abided by many details of dress, conduct, and worship. When the priests performed these rituals, God met with the children of Israel and sanctified the Temple by His glory (Ex. 29:43). All of these details and acts symbolized the Messiah, who was to come and be the propitiation for sin. In that most holy place, God reaffirmed His promise to His people.

Today’s Jews fundamentally reject Jesus Christ as their Messiah, and do not recognize the New Testament. They abide by the regulations of the Old Testament’s Law of Moses and the rabbinical traditions of the Talmud. The Levitical priests performed the rituals and rites within the Temple. Animal sacrifice was necessary for the remission of sin. Without a Temple, no Orthodox Jewish person living today can practice his faith to the letter of the law. This explains the desire of some Jewish sects to rebuild the Temple, which is as great a part of Judaism as possessing the land which God gave to the Israelites.

Three and a half years after the Antichrist agrees to his covenant (i.e., peace treaty) with Israel, he invades Jerusalem with an army (Joel 1:6, Dan. 11:31, 9:26). He then enters the most holy place, sits in the Temple and declares himself a god (II Thess. 2:4). The Antichrist terminates the worship and sacrifice, and commits sacrilegious acts, desecrating the Temple. He

places some abominable thing in the Holy Place. His true character reveals itself as he lays siege to Israel, occupies its territory, and wages war against Christians and Jews, undertaking their annihilation (Dan. 11:33-35, 12:10, Rev. 6:10-11, Jer. 50:33, Joel 1:6, Matt. 24:9, Mark 13:9-13).Only a third of the Israelites will survive. Zechariah 13:8 declares: “And it shall come to pass, in all the land, says the Lord, two in it shall be cut off and die; but one third shall be left in it.

Concurrently, he and his federation of kings abolish the Catholic Church, and destroy the Vatican (Rev.17). The Antichrist will not tolerate any religion other than the worship of, and devotion to, himself and his empire. Daniel 11:37 affirms that the Antichrist regards no man, and thus has no regard for human life or suffering. He epitomizes man’s inhumanity to man.

Christ solemnly warns the Jews in Judea at the time to flee to the mountains. He commands them to run and leave their jackets behind. He notes the additional suffering for pregnant and nursing mothers who must flee. In Matthew 24:21, Christ declares: “For then there will be great Tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be.

The Covenant of Death

In Isaiah 28:18, God refers to the treaty as a “covenant with death,” an “agreement with hell.” In Ezekiel chapter 13, God is angry at the prophets and prophetesses who speak from their hearts and tell the Israelites of peace. Verse 16 reads: “That is, the prophets of Israel who prophesy concerning Jerusalem, and who see visions of peace for her, when there is no peace, says the Lord God.” Psalm 55:20-21 describes the Antichrist’s aims by stating:

He has put forth his hands against those who were at peace with him: he has broken his covenant. The words of his mouth were smoother than butter, but war was in his heart: his words were softer than oil, yet they were drawn swords.” Isaiah 33:7-9 adds: “Surely their valiant ones shall cry outside, the ambassadors of peace shall weep bitterly. The highways lie waste, the wayfaring man ceases. He has broken the covenant, He has despised the cities He regards no man.”

The four horsemen of Revelation 6:1-8 symbolize the Antichrist’s reign of terror. Entering the world on a white horse in the name of peace, he comes to conquer. The red horse signifies the bloodshed wrought by him in war. The black horse depicts famine. The pale horse, a mixture of all the colors, represents the death of one-fourth of the world’s population—a result of his conquest.

Coincidentally, the Nazi flag was red, white, and black, and both the swastika and the circle are satanic symbols. Hitler declared that these colors formed “the most brilliant harmony in existence.”[21] Red and black are also the symbolic colors for Satanism.

When the Antichrist enters power, he acts deceptively, and exalts himself above all, and speaks against the God of gods. He honors a strange god of fortresses by acknowledging and glorifying it and causing it to rule over many (Dan. 11:23, 36-39). This might possibly be a weapon system, or computer infrastructure. The Antichrist changes times and laws (Dan. 7:25), and has a statue made of himself, which the False Prophet will cause to speak. Those who refuse to honor his image, he murders. He demands worship from the masses, and the crowds worship him (Rev. 13:8, 14-16). He prospers by accomplishing his aims. His dreadful and terrible empire devours the world, and breaks it in pieces, with the speed of a cheetah. (Dan. 7:7, 8:24; Rev. 13:2).

The final world power is the equal of all the previous world powers combined, and its authority extends worldwide (Rev. 13:2). Revelation 13:7-8 confirms that “authority was given him over every tribe, tongue and nation and all who dwell on the earth will worship him.” The Antichrist initially gains the masses’ admiration through his eloquence, financial solutions and his ingenious peace proposals. He invades and conquers those nations that oppose him. Isaiah 10:14 records the power of the Antichrist’s conquest in his own words. He declares: “My hand has found like a nest the riches of the people: and as one gathers eggs that are left, I have gathered all the earth; and there was no one who moved his wing, nor opened his mouth, with even a peep.” This lines up with Daniels description of a demonic, animal, metal beast, which rises to great power.

Russia, the kings of the East, and a great nation from the coast of the earth attack and destroy his kingdom, possibly by a nuclear attack. Hearing of this, he goes out with great fury to destroy and annihilate many people, and flees to his sanctuary in Jerusalem. Invading armies attack him in Israel, and the remaining troops of the nation’s join them at the battle of Armageddon (Rev. 16:16, 18; Ezek. 38; Jer. 4, 5, 50; Dan. 11:40-45).

All of the Old Testament prophets refer to Armageddon as “The Day of the Lord.” Jeremiah 46:10 records it as “a day of vengeance, a great slaughter, north of the river Euphrates.” The greatest earthquake in history levels and divides cities around the globe. Mountains cease to be, and islands sink under water. The sun darkens, stars fall from the sky, and the moon turns to blood (Is. 2:12; Ezek. 30:3; Zech. 14:1-9; Zeph. 1; Joel 2:1-2, 10, 3:1, 15; Rev. 6:12, 16:9; Mark 13:24-25; Matt. 24:29).

At the Tribulation’s end, Jesus Christ, shining bright as the sun, appears in the clouds with the saints and legions of angels (Rev. 19; Mark 13:26-27; Matt. 24:30). John Walvord records in his book Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation that: “The description of the time of the end confirms Daniel’s revelation that it will be a period of trouble such as the world has never known, trouble of such character that it would result in the extermination of the human race if it were not cut short by the consummation, the second coming of Jesus Christ.”[22]

God’s Judgments

The Antichrist’s reign and the final cataclysmic earthquakes and radical changes in the solar system are only part of the Tribulation that befalls mankind.

• Nation rises against nation in war (Matt. 24:7).

• An army of 200 million men (possibly China) slays a third of the earth’s population (Rev. 9:13-21).

• A great volcanic eruption destroys a third of all sea life.

• Hail and fire mingled with blood burns a third of all trees and grass (Rev.8:7).

• A great star falls from heaven, poisoning a third of the earth’s waters (Rev. 8:10-11).

• Day and night reverse (Rev. 8:12).

• A five-month plague of locusts stinging like scorpions leave men in agonizing pain (Rev. 13:21).

• Large hailstones rain down on the earth (Rev. 16:21).

• Rivers, seas, and lakes become as blood, and all sea and aquatic life disappear (Rev. 16:3-4).

• The sun becomes extremely hot, and scorches men with great fear and fire (Rev. 16:18).

• Darkness fills the seat of the kingdom of the Beast, and grievous sores torment the individuals who bear the Mark of the Beast (Rev. 16:2,10).

• The river Euphrates dries up, making way for the kings of the East (Rev. 16:12).

After all of these events occur, the world’s armies surround Jerusalem for the battle of Armageddon. Christ returns in the clouds with His legions of angels. The Antichrist and the world’s armies attempt to make war against him. Christ casts the Beast and the False Prophet into the lake of fire, and slays the remainder of his forces by the sword of His word (Rev. 19:19-21). The earth returns to its pre-flood state, and God judges the nations (Matt. 25). Christ himself rules the earth for a thousand years, and binds Satan. At the millennium’s end, God frees Satan, and he causes men to rebel against God. They surround the holy city, and God sends fire from heaven to devour them. God casts Satan into the lake of fire for eternity. At this time the judgment seat of God takes place. Those whose names are not in the book of life, God casts into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:15).

God creates a new heaven and earth. The New Jerusalem descends from heaven, with streets of gold and walls of precious stones. The glory of God and the light of Christ illuminate the new heaven, and those who placed their faith in Jesus Christ live on for eternity (Rev. 21).

God’s Promise

God provides man the opportunity to seek Him during the Tribulation. “Two witnesses” prophesy for almost three and a half years. Men try to hurt them, and they smite the earth with plagues that cause rain to stop, and water to turn into blood. The beast that ascends out of the bottomless pit makes war against them and kills them. The nations rejoice at their death. God raises them from the dead and lifts them into heaven (Rev. 11:3-13). Tradition identifies these men as Moses and Elijah (Rev.11:16) because God gave Elijah and Moses the ability to perform miracles and because they both appeared with Jesus on the mount of transfiguration (Matt.17:1-3). Elijah and Elisha together as a team might also be the two witnesses because of all the prophets they performed powerful miracles which included raising a person from the dead.

In addition, during the Tribulation 144,000 witnesses, consisting of 12,000 from each of 12 tribes of Israel, preach the Gospel to the four

corners of the earth (Rev. 7:1-9, 14:1-7). Despite the outpouring of God’s anger and judgments, He still desires that men turn to Him. Revelation 9:20-21 declares: “after all of these plagues, man will not repent of his evil ways. Instead, he curses God.” This phrase repeats throughout the entire book of Revelation with each plague issued.

Today we have the Gospel and the Bible which teaches us about Jesus Christ and forewarns the world about the horrific events that are yet to come. Those who have accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior will not go through the Tribulation. God takes them out of the world in the Rapture just prior to the earth’s final seven years. II Thessalonians 4:14-18 tells us:

For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus.

For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep.

For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God: and the dead in Christ will rise first:

Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and thus we shall always be with the Lord.

Therefore comfort one another with these words.

In John’s vision on the Isle of Patmos, he saw an innumerable multitude of people dressed in white robes, praising God. John asked who these people were. The angel answered him and said: “These are the ones who come out of the great Tribulation, and washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb” (Rev. 7:9,13,14). Christians will come out of the Tribulation. The blood of Jesus Christ makes them perfect in God’s sight.

God ushered Lot and his family out of Sodom and Gomorrah before destroying the city. He commanded Noah to build the ark, rescuing his family from the flood. God brings those who have placed their faith in his Son out of the Great Tribulation. The rapture occurs just prior to and after the sealing of the 144,000. This disappearance of people will go virtually unnoticed amid the tumultuous events of the times. Some may regard it as a rare occurrence of individuals disappearing into another dimension. Others may claim that aliens abducted the missing. Various experts will offer their explanations of how the disappearance of these people could have occurred. On the whole, though, with paranormal incidents occurring with increasing frequency, and stories of alien abductions filling the airwaves, the Rapture will seem unremarkable to most of the world’s inhabitants. After the Rapture, the Tribulation will usher in signs and wonders performed by false Christs, the False Prophet and those performed by God Himself through the two witnesses.


  1. A good portion of this list is found in Dwight J. Pentecost, Things to Come: A Study in Bible Eschatology, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1971, p. 334.
  2. Ibid. Dwight J. Pentecost, pp. 317, 319-323. See also Lehman Strauss, Commentaries-Revelation, New Jersey: Neptune, 1964, Loizeaux Brothers, 1985, p. 248.
  3. William Smith L.L.D., Smith’s Bible Dictionary, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1979, pp. 715-718.
  4. Will and Ariel Durant, Our Oriental Heritage: The Story of Civilization 1, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1963, pp. 227-229.
  5. Stanley Hoffman, “The European Community and 1992,” Foreign Affairs, Fall 1989, p. 33. See also Donald S. Zagoria, “The China Challenge: American Politics in East Asia,” The Academy of Political Science, vol. 38, no. 2 (New York, 1991), p. 4.
  6. Wikipedia contributors, “Dome of the Rock,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dome_of_the_Rock&oldid=331219660 (accessed January 2, 2010)
  7. William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1960, p. 43.
  8. John F. Walvoord, Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation, Chicago: Moody Press, 1971, p. 283.