By Craig M. White
December 2025

I learned in school history lessons how Roosevelt wanted to work with Stalin to destroy the British Empire. We know for certain that he used WW2 to destroy the Empire. I similarly learned from my Dad how the Americans sold the British rusted old WW1 ships which were mainly useless in WW2; how the British were taken to the edge of bankruptcy before Roosevelt would get involved. He knew what he was doing. Many years later I read an article on this subject by Australian conservative commentator, Bartholomew Santamaria “Roosevelt and Stalin, blood brothers in arms,” The Australian, 2 January 1989.

As we shall learn, this term (‘special relationship’) coined by Winston Churchill in a May 1943 speech has been anything but smooth – instead it has been a rocky road.

However, it does represent an unusually close relationship that seems to have peaked under President Ronald Reagan and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Chiefly because the Anglo-Keltic elements within Britain and America are blood brothers – a bloodline that extends into ancient times and this surmounts physical barriers such as oceans and the passing of time. This aspect needs to be explored in the first instance.

The Ancient Roots of the British and Americans
Many of our readers would be familiar with the concept of the Anglo-Saxons, Kelts and other related peoples of North-west Europe having direct, genetic descent from ancient Israel. They, unlike any other peoples in history, obviously fulfill the prophecies concerning the descendants of Israel in the latter days.

Many excellent (and not so excellent) works have been published on the subject which has been believed and taught for centuries, but gained traction in the second half of the 19th century as ‘knowledge increased’ (Daniel 12:4). Refer to the items available online here on this aspect of the belief which is sometimes known as the ‘truth about Israel’ or ‘British-Israelism.’

In effect this doctrine teaches that the Biblical promises of national greatness given to the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh—the sons of Joseph—find their fulfillment in the modern Anglo-Saxon peoples, with Ephraim representing the British (English) people and their Commonwealth, and Manasseh representing the United States of America.

This identification is partially based on Genesis 48, where the patriarch Jacob (Israel) adopts and blesses Joseph’s sons, crossing his hands to place his right hand on the younger Ephraim despite Joseph’s protest. Jacob declares: But his father refused and said, “I know, my son, I know. He also shall become a people, and he also shall be great. Nevertheless, his younger brother [Ephraim] shall be greater than he [Manasseh], and his offspring shall become a multitude of nations.” (Genesis 48:19, ESV). This is interpreted as Ephraim’s promise of becoming a “multitude [or commonwealth] of nations” as fulfilled in the vast British Empire and its colonies; while Manasseh’s destiny as a single “great people” which aligns with America’s rise as a powerful, unified nation – especially during and after WW2. This does not mean that all of the native White peoples of the United Kingdom or the Unites States are descendants of Ephraim and Manasseh as other tribes are represented therein. But, especially in respect to the United States, their home territories are assigned to them as blessings even if, as is the case of America, the Anglo-Saxon element is a clear minority today.

Later, the blessings are referred to again in Deuteronomy 33, where Moses pronounces prosperity on the tribe of Joseph (Ephraim and Manasseh): “And of Joseph he said, “Blessed by the LORD be his land, with the choicest gifts of heaven above, and of the deep that crouches beneath, with the choicest fruits of the sun and the rich yield of the months, with the finest produce of the ancient mountains and the abundance of the everlasting hills.” (Deuteronomy 33:13-15, ESV). Notice that Moses further describes the strength of these people: “A firstborn bull – he has majesty, and his horns are the horns of a wild ox; with them he shall gore the peoples, all of them, to the ends of the earth; they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.” (Deuteronomy 33:17, ESV). We can view this as prophetic of colonial expansion and military dominance, with Ephraim’s “ten thousands” symbolising greater numbers and influence compared to Manasseh’s “thousands.” It seems that if one were to add up all the descendants of Ephraim over the centuries including those in the colonies, they would outnumber the Anglo-Saxon Americans.

However, these numbers are likely to be metaphorical. For instance, scholars such as Jeffrey Tigay, The JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy (1996), p. 329; Peter Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy. New International Commentary on the Old Testament (1976), p. 399; and Duane Christensen, “Deuteronomy 21:10–34:12”, Word Biblical Commentary, (Vol. 6B, 2002), p. 839 argue that these numbers figuratively denote their relative population size and strength, not literal numbers, in a poetic prophecy of tribal vigour and success.

Of importance to the equation is the British Royalty. Notice Genesis 35:11 where God to Jacob: “And God said to him, ‘I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply. A nation and a company of nations shall come from you, and kings shall come from your own body.'” This is linked to the British monarchy, descendants of David and the empire’s multitude of nations under one crown.

A key aspect of the theory is the sequence of greatness: Manasseh, though the elder, would achieve prominence after Ephraim. Historically, the British Empire reached its zenith in the 19th century as the world’s foremost power, while the United States emerged as the leading superpower in the 20th century, particularly after WW2—separating from Britain and surpassing it in economic and military might. This aligns with Jacob’s words that Manasseh “also shall be great” but that Ephraim “shall be greater” first, with the elder serving the younger in timing (cp. Genesis 48:19-20). Thus, America’s later ascendancy is viewed as the fulfillment of Manasseh following Ephraim in national blessing and global influence.

But how did Manasseh surpass Ephraim? American was already gradually rising to be a great nation and could have worked together with the British to dominate and uplift the world. Instead, Roosevelt and others decided to destroy the British Empire. Unfathomable from a Christian perspective, but something he and his administration fervently believed in such a cause.

Without realising it, he was helping along the passing of the baton from Ephraim to Manasseh. Historians such as Kathleen Burk capture this historical movement.

The writings of Kathleen Burk
Some years ago I attended a free lecture at the US Studies Centre (University of Sydney) featuring Prof. Kathleen Burk. During the lecture, Ms Burk mentioned how indeed Roosevelt wanted to work with Stalin against the Empire and has written about it. She is probably the world’s foremost expert on the British-American ‘special relationship’ having studied for her PhD at Oxford University, supervised by the renowned historian Alan J. P. Taylor.

In her book The Lion and the Eagle: The Interaction of the British and American Empires, 1783–1972 (2018), Burk examines the Anglo-American relationship through the perspectives of both imperial rivalry and cooperation, placing emphasis on WW2. She contends that President Franklin D. Roosevelt perceived the British Empire as fundamentally opposed to American principles of self-determination and reform, and he actively endeavoured to weaken it through wartime strategies and diplomatic efforts. She underscores Roosevelt’s inclination to partner with the Soviet Union—a socially progressive entity in his view—rather than with Britain, which he saw as a waning, conservative imperial power. This view diminished Winston Churchill’s influence and hastened the Empire’s decline.

Regarding Roosevelt’s scepticism towards British imperial intentions and his advocacy for decolonisation through the Atlantic Charter (1941), she and others noted that Roosevelt’ wartime policies of the Atlantic Charter and Lend-Lease were largely designed to dismantle the British Empire. Roosevelt demanded ‘freedom of the seas’, self-determination for colonised nations, and the termination of the Sterling Zone as prerequisites for supporting Britain’s war efforts.

In terms of his strategic alignment with Stalin and his humiliation of Churchill, Burk outlines Roosevelt’s attempts to forge a U.S.-Soviet partnership by marginalising Britain: “It might be a surprise to learn that the Churchill-Roosevelt relationship began to break down in 1943. Roosevelt perceived the USSR as, like the US, a socially reforming nation; conversely, he saw the UK as the controller of a huge empire, antipathetic to American values.” (“From Churchill and Roosevelt to May and Trump: 75 years of the ‘special relationship’ between the US and the UK”, published on HistoryExtra, a BBC History Magazine site during the Summer of 2018.)

WW2 provided the opportunity to Manasseh to seize the moment and take over from Ephraim. Yet those involved at the top (Roosevelt and Churchill) did not know that they were fulfilling the prophecy!

Christopher Simon noted in his Blowback: America’s Recruitment of Nazis and Its Destructive Impact on Our Domestic and Foreign Policy (2014) “Roosevelt repeatedly went out of his way to humiliate Churchill in front of Stalin during the Tehran Conference of the Big Three in 1943. On one occasion the President mocked Churchill’s British accent and mannerisms until the Prime Minister stalked out of the room in the middle of a state dinner.” (p. 251)

In The Lion and the Eagle she wrote: “From the American conquest of the Philippines to the dismantling of the British Empire. The Pax Americana supplanted the Pax Britannica.” (p. 427) The U.S. not only declined to support the Empire but actively replaced it, with Soviet alignment acting as a counterbalance to British influence in international negotiations.

Burk has written or edited numerous books concerning Anglo-American relations, frequently focusing on the economic, diplomatic, and imperial tensions that characterised the Roosevelt era. Among these works are Old World, New World: The Story of Britain and America (2007) which represents a thorough history of Anglo-American relations from 1607 to the Iraq War, with chapters on imperial tensions during WWII. She discusses Lend-Lease as an anti-imperial instrument.

Anglo-American Relations in the Twentieth Century (co-edited with S. A. Hatton) (1995) is a collection of essays addressing diplomatic changes, including the strains of the WW2 alliance. It challenges the myths of seamless unity.

In her lecture We Are Down on Our Knees to the Americans: Anglo-American Relations in the Twentieth Century (8 October 1996) Burk emphasises Roosevelt’s use of aid to extract imperial concessions: “The Americans were determined to get rid of [the British Empire] and all the other European versions, and put themselves in charge.”

The Real Cost of Britain’s World War 2 Alliance with the United States
For decades a persistent myth has circulated that Britain somehow emerged from WW2 without ever paying for American help, or that the price was trivial – a few islands here, a handful of blueprints there. The historical record tells a rather different and far more painful story.

Ephraim more than paid its share to Manasseh!

1939–1940: Cash-and-Carry and the Brink of Bankruptcy:
When war broke out in September 1939, the United States was neutral, and its laws permitted only “cash-and-carry” purchases of arms: buyers had to pay upfront in gold or dollars and carry the goods away in their own ships. Britain and France resultantly paid. By the summer of 1940, however, Britain’s liquid reserves were almost exhausted. Hundreds of tonnes of gold were shipped across the Atlantic. By December 1940 the Treasury calculated Britain could continue cash purchases for only another four to six weeks. The country was, in the words of John Maynard Keynes, “financially prostrate”.

March 1941: Lend-Lease to the Rescue:
President Roosevelt’s Lend-Lease Act, signed on 11 March 1941, changed everything. Described by him as lending a garden hose to a neighbour whose house is on fire, it allowed the United States to supply war material without immediate payment. The earlier September 1940 “Destroyers-for-Bases” agreement was a separate transaction to “Lend-Lease”. In exchange for fifty old WW1-vintage American destroyers (most built 1917–1920 and in need of extensive refits), Britain granted the United States 99-year leases on naval and air bases in Newfoundland, Bermuda, and several Caribbean territories. Sovereignty over the territories themselves was never transferred.

1945–2006: The Post-War Reckoning
Victory in 1945 did not wipe the slate clean. The United States terminated Lend-Lease almost immediately after VJ Day, and presented Britain with a bill for undelivered civilian-type goods still in the pipeline. Further, to keep the British economy afloat, Washington offered a new Anglo-American Financial Agreement in December 1945: a $3.75 billion loan at 2% interest (plus a separate Canadian loan of $1.2 billion on similar terms). The final payment of £43 million (about $83 million at the time) was made on 29 December 2006. In nominal terms Britain repaid roughly twice the original principal once interest was included.

In the end Britain paid with:
• Its entire gold and dollar reserves in 1939–1940, plus forced asset sales until the treasury was empty.
• Long-term base rights across the Western Hemisphere in 1940.
• $31 billion in munitions and supplies received virtually interest-free during the war.
• A $4.95 billion post-war loan repaid with interest over six decades, plus the accelerated unwinding of the sterling area privileges and imperial trade preferences.

Further, Roosevelt strongly pressured Britain to grant India independence (or at least a clear path to it) as a condition tied to American wartime assistance during WW2, though he never made it a formal, absolute precondition for all aid.

He was genuinely anti-colonial and believed the Atlantic Charter (August 1941), which he co-authored with Churchill, applied universally – including to the British Empire. Article 3 of the Charter stated, “the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live.” And throughout 1942, Roosevelt sent multiple personal messages to Churchill urging Indian independence or major concessions to the Indian National Congress.

The terms were harsh by any standard, and many Britons at the time felt betrayed by an ally they had stood alone against Hitler for eighteen months. Britain survived, won the war, and eventually settled everything the agreements required.

Ephraim and Manasseh – transfer of Global Dominance
My Father used to rail against Roosevelt’s dirty deeds – coming in at the last possible moment (a bit like what happened during WW1) and using WW2 assistance as leverage to completely eliminate the British Empire.

But, perhaps, this can be seen in the prophetic context of the transfer of world leadership from Ephraim (British Anglo-Saxons plus Kelts) to Manasseh (American Anglo-Saxons plus Kelts)

Historically, at its height, the British Empire embodied “Israel’s power” with unmatched naval/military might, global colonisation, economic control, and missionary spread. Later, the American rise could have complemented it as the “great nation”, but instead they decided to destroy the Empire. So, America replaced the Empire and established itself as dominant. It has had its ups and downs and currently seems to be rising again and if genuine conservatives take office in Britain, Canada and Australia over the coming years, this would ensure that the ‘special relationship’ continues on, reasserting the dominance of the House of Joseph across the world. At least for some years.

God provides us with this prophecy via Micah:

“And the remnant of Jacob shall be among the nations, in the midst of many peoples, like a lion among the beasts of the forest, like a young lion among flocks of sheep, which, when it goes through, treads down and tears in pieces, and there is none to deliver.” (Micah 5:8, ESV. Cp Deuteronomy 33:17)

This verse describes the awesome strength and dominance of the Israel – and in particular the descendants of Joseph (Ephraim and Manasseh) among the nations, portraying them as powerful and unstoppable like a lion!

However, when it is God’s time, He will raise up gentile powers that can and will afflict terrible harm to these peoples. In the meantime, let us enjoy the blessings He has bestowed upon the Israelites in these last days.

Editor’s Note: Craig White of Sydney, Australia is one of the most prolific writers, researchers and archivists in the history of the Church of God, and a contributor to World News and Prophecy Review. We are pleased to showcase Craig’s work and encourage you to visit his extensive collection of work at his website: FOS | Friends of Sabbath

World News and Prophecy Review

Please consider sharing this article on your favorite social media platform by clicking the share button below.

Part 2: Why Silence Is Not Neutrality

Introduction

In Part 1, we established a foundational biblical truth: Christian submission to governing authority is real, but it is never unconditional. Romans 13, Titus 3, and 1 Peter 2 describe obedience only when rulers act as God’s servants — restraining evil and rewarding good. When authority abandons that role, Scripture is clear that obedience to God must take precedence.

That conclusion leads to an unavoidable modern question: What happens when moral truth itself is redefined as “political” in order to silence the Church?

In today’s world, issues Scripture once addressed plainly — life, marriage, truth, justice, and accountability — are increasingly framed as political opinions rather than moral realities. As a result, many Christians are pressured to remain silent, not because Scripture is unclear, but because speaking has become uncomfortable.

Yet Scripture consistently teaches that silence in the face of evil is never neutral.

---

When Morality Is Rebranded as “Politics”

Throughout biblical history, God’s servants spoke about matters that affected nations, kings, and societies. Those messages were never described as “political” in Scripture — they were described as righteous, prophetic, or true.

In modern times, however, moral issues are often rebranded as political to discourage public discussion. This reframing subtly shifts the question from “Is this right or wrong?” to “Is this appropriate to say?” — a dangerous exchange that replaces conscience with caution.

The result is a Church that fears controversy more than compromise.

Legal structures such as the Johnson Amendment of 1954 contributed to this environment by discouraging churches from engaging anything perceived as political. While framed as a tax issue, its broader effect was to create hesitation and fear in pulpits. Even when legal enforcement waned, the culture of silence remained.

But Scripture never instructs God’s people to wait for permission to speak truth.

Isaiah did not ask approval before crying aloud.
Jeremiah did not poll public opinion before warning Judah.
John the Baptist did not soften his message to preserve access to Herod.

Truth was spoken because truth demanded to be spoken.

---

The Difference Between Partisanship and Prophecy

A crucial distinction must be made here. The Bible does not call the Church to be partisan. It does not instruct believers to campaign for political parties or seek power within earthly systems.

But Scripture does call the Church to be prophetic.

Partisanship seeks influence.
Prophecy seeks repentance.

Partisanship aligns itself with platforms.
Prophecy aligns itself with God’s law.

When the Church becomes partisan, it loses moral authority. When it becomes silent, it loses moral clarity. The biblical calling is neither — it is faithfulness.

Jesus Himself modeled this balance. He did not seek political office, yet He confronted hypocrisy, injustice, and abuse of authority wherever it appeared. His kingdom was not of this world, but His words challenged every system built on pride, deception, and unrighteousness.

---

The Cost of Silence in Scripture

The Bible does not merely show us the value of courage — it shows us the cost of silence.

If Moses had avoided confronting Pharaoh, Israel would have remained enslaved.
If Elijah had avoided confronting Ahab, Baal worship would have consumed Israel unchecked.
If Daniel had avoided confronting Nebuchadnezzar, a king would never have learned humility before God.
If John the Baptist had avoided confronting Herod, repentance would have died unheard in the wilderness.

None of these men held political office. None had armies or institutions behind them. They were not empowered by the state. They were empowered by conviction and obedience to God.

Their courage reminds us that God does not require His servants to succeed politically — only to be faithful spiritually.

Silence, by contrast, carries its own message. When God’s people refuse to speak, evil is emboldened, truth is obscured, and confusion multiplies. Scripture never treats silence as virtue when righteousness is at stake.

---

Obedience to God in a Volatile World

The apostles understood this tension firsthand. They taught respect for authority, even while suffering under unjust regimes. Yet when commanded to stop preaching the truth, they responded without ambiguity:

“We ought to obey God rather than men.”

This was not rebellion. It was obedience to a higher authority.

Christians today face a similar challenge. We are called to live peaceably, pray for leaders, obey laws, and contribute to society. But we are never called to affirm what God condemns, nor to deny what God has revealed.

When obedience to government requires disobedience to God, the choice is already made.

---

Citizens of Heaven, Witnesses on Earth

Jesus told Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world.” That statement did not excuse silence — it clarified allegiance. Christians are citizens of another kingdom, yet they live and speak within this one.

That dual citizenship requires wisdom, humility, and courage.

We must respect authority — but recognize its limits.
We must pray for leaders — but never excuse their sin.
We must submit where authority restrains evil — and resist where it promotes it.
We must speak truth — even when truth is labeled “political.”

Paul’s exhortation remains as relevant now as it was then:

“…that you may become blameless and harmless, children of God without fault in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world.”

Light does not argue with darkness. It exposes it.

---

Conclusion: The Church’s Prophetic Responsibility

The Church must never become partisan — but it must always remain prophetic. When it abandons that role, it ceases to function as salt and light. When it embraces that role with humility and courage, it becomes the conscience of a nation.

God’s people are not called to dominate culture, but neither are they called to retreat from it. They are called to stand, speak, and remain faithful, trusting that God — not governments — determines the course of history.

In a world that increasingly confuses silence with wisdom, Scripture reminds us that faithfulness still has a voice.

Closing Editor’s Note

Together, Parts 1 and 2 of A Christian’s Responsibility in a Political World present a single biblical framework: Christian submission to authority is real, meaningful, and commanded — but it is never unconditional.

Scripture consistently shows that governing authority derives its legitimacy from God only when it fulfills God’s purpose: restraining evil and promoting good. Romans 13, Titus 3, and 1 Peter 2 describe obedience within that moral boundary, while Acts 5:29 establishes the clear limit — obedience to God must always take precedence when human authority contradicts divine law.

From Moses and Elijah to Daniel and John the Baptist, the biblical record demonstrates that God’s servants neither sought political power nor remained silent in the face of moral corruption. They respected authority, prayed for rulers, and lived peaceably — yet spoke truth courageously when righteousness was at stake.

In an age when moral issues are increasingly rebranded as “political” to discourage biblical clarity, the Church faces a defining challenge. Silence may appear safe, but Scripture never treats silence as neutral when truth is under assault.

The calling of God’s people remains unchanged: to live as citizens of heaven while serving as witnesses on earth — honoring authority where possible, resisting it where necessary, and always remaining faithful to the higher government of God.

World News and Prophecy Review

Please consider sharing this article on your favorite social media platform by clicking on the “share” button below.

Part 1: When Biblical Submission Ends and Moral Courage Begins

Editor’s Preface

The modern Church faces growing pressure to remain silent on moral issues once clearly understood as matters of right and wrong. Increasingly, such issues are labeled “political,” discouraging biblical teaching under the assumption that faith and public life must remain separate.

Yet Scripture presents a different model — one in which God’s servants respect authority while holding leaders accountable to divine standards. This article examines the biblical balance between obedience and moral courage, showing that Christian submission to authority is never unconditional, but always governed by allegiance to God.

---

Christian Responsibility in a Political World

In every age, God’s people have lived under rulers — some just, others corrupt. From Pharaoh in Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon, from Herod in Judea to the leaders of our modern world, the question has remained unchanged:

How should God’s people respond to authority when that authority conflicts with God’s law?

We live in a world that is politically charged, deeply divided, and morally confused. Many believe that “politics” has no place in the Church — that mentioning what a leader says or does crosses an unacceptable line. Yet the Bible itself is filled with examples of God’s servants addressing rulers directly — not as political activists, but as ambassadors of divine truth.

There is indeed a fine line between promoting candidates and proclaiming righteousness. But when laws, policies, and leadership decisions touch on what God clearly defines as right and wrong, the Church cannot remain silent.

Silence is not neutrality — it is surrender.

---

Authority Comes From God — With a Defined Purpose

Romans 13 is frequently cited as to show that Christians must obey governing authorities without exception. However, a careful reading shows that the passage describes authority as God intends it to function, not as it always does.

“Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God… For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil… For he is God’s minister to you for good” (Romans 13:1–4).

The defining phrase is unmistakable: “God’s minister to you for good.”
Authority is legitimate only when it serves God’s moral purpose — punishing evil and rewarding good.

This same condition appears throughout the New Testament.

Paul writes to Titus:

“Remind them to be subject to rulers and authorities, to obey, to be ready for every good work” (Titus 3:1).

Submission is paired with readiness to do good — not with passive compliance. Likewise, Peter writes:

“Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake… For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men” (1 Peter 2:13–15).

In all three passages — Romans, Titus, and Peter — submission is functional and moral, not absolute. Rulers are to be obeyed when they act as God’s servants, not when they contradict His law.

When authority ceases to punish evil and instead promotes it — when righteousness is restrained and sin is celebrated — it forfeits its divine legitimacy.

At that point, Scripture speaks plainly:

“We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

This is not rebellion. It is obedience to the highest authority.

---

Daniel: The Biblical Model of Conditional Submission

No biblical figure illustrates this balance more clearly than Daniel. He served under Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, and Darius — three rulers, three administrations, three empires. Daniel was loyal, respectful, and diligent, yet never confused loyalty with worship.

When Nebuchadnezzar’s pride reached its height, Daniel confronted him directly:

“Therefore, O king, let my advice be acceptable to you; break off your sins by being righteous” (Daniel 4:27).

Daniel did not ask whether this counsel was “political.” He understood that rulers are accountable to God.

Later, when Babylon fell, Daniel rebuked Belshazzar openly:

“The God who holds your breath in His hand and owns all your ways, you have not glorified” (Daniel 5:23).

Daniel obeyed Babylonian law when it did not conflict with God’s law. When it did — whether dietary commands, idolatry, or prayer restrictions — Daniel refused, regardless of consequence.

His submission was real, but it was never unconditional.

---

Why Silence Was Never an Option for God’s Servants

This pattern runs throughout Scripture. Moses confronted Pharaoh. Elijah confronted Ahab. Nathan confronted David. None of these men sought political power. None organized movements. They simply spoke truth.

John the Baptist carried this prophetic responsibility into the New Testament era:

“It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife” (Mark 6:18).

John’s courage cost him his life, yet Jesus declared him the greatest among those born of women. John understood that public sin by public leaders demands public accountability.

At the same time, Scripture shows prophets supporting righteous rulers — Joseph under Pharaoh, Daniel under Darius, Nehemiah under Artaxerxes. When leadership aligned with God’s purposes, it was affirmed.

The Church’s role, therefore, is not to campaign, but to discern — affirming righteousness wherever it appears and confronting evil wherever it manifests.

---

The Intersection of Church Responsibility and Worldly Politics

If Scripture teaches conditional submission rather than blind obedience, then the modern question becomes unavoidable:

What happens when moral issues are labeled “political” in order to silence the Church?

In Part 2, we will examine how moral truth became politicized, why silence carries a spiritual cost, and how Christians can remain citizens of heaven while living faithfully in a volatile world.

World News and Prophecy Review

Please consider sharing this article on your favorite social media platforms or distributing through email.

(December 15, 2025) One of the most misunderstood aspects of Bible prophecy is the distinction between conditional and unconditional prophecy. Critics often point to apparent “failures” of prophecy in Scripture, while others assume every prophetic warning must unfold exactly as stated. Both approaches miss an essential biblical principle: some prophecies are conditional upon human response, while others are irrevocable declarations of God’s sovereign purpose.

Understanding this distinction is critical—not only for understanding Prophecy correctly, but for recognizing the prophetic patterns unfolding in our world today.

---

Declaring the End from the Beginning

The foundation of all prophecy rests in God’s self-description:

Isaiah 46:9–10 (NKJV)
“Remember the former things of old,
For I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like Me,
Declaring the end from the beginning,
And from ancient times things that are not yet done,
Saying, ‘My counsel shall stand,
And I will do all My pleasure.’”

This passage establishes two truths that must be held together:

1. God knows the outcome of history in advance.
2. Human choices still matter within that framework.

The Bible reveals that God often warns nations, kings, and peoples in advance—sometimes to avert disaster, sometimes to announce what cannot be avoided. The difference lies in whether the prophecy is conditional or unconditional.

---

Conditional Prophecy: Warnings Meant to Provoke Repentance

Conditional prophecies are genuine warnings, not empty threats. They reveal what will happen if behavior does not change. Importantly, when repentance occurs, God often withholds or delays the announced judgment—without compromising His integrity.

The clearest explanation of this principle is found in Jeremiah:

Jeremiah 18:7–10 (NKJV)
“The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it.
And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it,
if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.”

Here, God explicitly states that some prophecies are contingent on human response.

Nineveh: A Classic Example

The book of Jonah illustrates conditional prophecy in action. Jonah proclaimed:

“Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!” (Jonah 3:4)

No conditions were stated—but they were implied. When the people repented, God spared the city. This did not make Jonah a false prophet; rather, it revealed God’s mercy as the desired outcome.

Israel and Judah

Throughout the Old Testament, God repeatedly warned Israel and Judah through prophets such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, and Amos. Many of these warnings were conditional. At times—such as during the reign of Hezekiah—repentance delayed judgment. At other times—such as under Manasseh and Zedekiah—the warnings were ignored, and judgment followed.

Conditional prophecy underscores this truth:
God prefers repentance over punishment, but He will not ignore persistent rebellion.

---

Unconditional Prophecy: God’s Non-Negotiable Declarations

By contrast, unconditional prophecies will occur regardless of human response. These are tied directly to God’s covenant promises, His redemptive plan, and His ultimate purpose for humanity.

Examples include:

• The coming of the Messiah (Isaiah 53; Micah 5:2)
• The preservation of Israel as a people (Jeremiah 31:35–37)
• The rise and fall of world empires (Daniel 2; Daniel 7)
• The return of Jesus Christ and establishment of God’s Kingdom (Daniel 2:44; Revelation 11:15)

These prophecies are not warnings; they are announcements.

Even when individuals resist or attempt to thwart them, God’s purpose moves forward. The crucifixion of Christ itself—carried out by human betrayal and injustice—fulfilled unconditional prophecy (Acts 2:23).

---

When Conditional Becomes Unconditional

A crucial prophetic principle often overlooked is this:
Repeated rejection of conditional warnings can eventually trigger unconditional judgment.

Judah experienced this progression. Early prophetic warnings offered opportunities for repentance. But after generations of rebellion—especially under Manasseh—God declared judgment that would no longer be reversed:

2 Kings 23:26–27 (NKJV)
“Nevertheless the Lord did not turn from the fierceness of His great wrath…
And the Lord said, ‘I will also remove Judah from My sight…’”

What began as conditional warnings became inevitable consequences.

---

Leadership Failure and National Judgment

A recurring biblical theme is that national decline begins with corrupt leadership. The prophets consistently targeted kings, princes, priests, and judges—not merely the population at large.

Isaiah 3:12 (NKJV)
“As for My people, children are their oppressors,
And women rule over them.
O My people! Those who lead you cause you to err,
And destroy the way of your paths.”

Hosea 5:10 (NKJV)
“The princes of Judah are like those who remove a landmark;
I will pour out My wrath on them like water.”

Micah 3:11 (NKJV)
“Her heads judge for a bribe,
Her priests teach for pay,
And her prophets divine for money;
Yet they lean on the Lord, and say,
‘Is not the Lord among us?’”

These prophecies expose a dangerous illusion: religious language can coexist with moral corruption—until judgment comes.

---

Modern Application: A Prophetic Pattern Repeating

While ancient Israel and Judah were historical nations, Scripture itself affirms that their experiences were recorded for later generations:

1 Corinthians 10:11 (NKJV)
“Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, on whom the ends of the ages have come.”

Today, Western nations—many of which trace their moral foundations to biblical principles—are exhibiting the same patterns:

• Rejection of God’s law as outdated
• Moral confusion presented as progress
• Corruption within political and judicial systems
• Religious institutions accommodating cultural pressure
• National identity and moral boundaries being deliberately blurred

These trends mirror the conditions described by the prophets. Whether modern nations heed the warning remains to be seen.

---

The House Always Wins—Because God’s Purpose Stands

There is a saying in Las Vegas: “In the end, the house always wins.”
In prophecy, the parallel is this: God’s counsel will stand.

Some outcomes may be delayed through repentance. Some judgments may be mitigated. But God’s ultimate plan for humanity—His Kingdom, His law, and His redemption—cannot be overturned.

Conditional prophecy reminds us that repentance still matters.
Unconditional prophecy reminds us that God is never caught off guard.

The tragedy is not that God warns—it is that humanity so often refuses to listen.

World News and Prophecy Review

Please consider sharing this article on your favorite social media platforms by clicking the button below

Editor’s Note: One of the most misunderstood of all nations is South Africa. Throughout the 20th century, South Africa rose to one of the highest standards of living in all the developed world. South Africa has been blessed with some of the most productive farmlands in the world, but their farming community has been under attack for several decades. South Africa also possesses vast mineral resources and even joined the group of nations with nuclear weapons, in the 20th Century. South Africa’s abundant wealth may explain why this once proud nation has been under attack from Marxist forces exhibited toward the descendants of Dutch, English and German settlers, who helped develop South Africa’s wealth and resources.

For this reason, World News and Prophecy Review has asked for a South African perspective to help our readers understand the modern development of South Africa, from the time of colonization to the present day. Craig M. White, writer, researcher and archivist now lives in Australia but was born in South Africa. Please visit http://www.friendsofsabbath.org for more of Mr. White’s writings and research archive.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

The Afrikaner settlers in South Africa have faced significant criticism and condemnation globally from both academia and the media. They know the truth but aim to eradicate Christian civilisation from the African continent, and this disparagement serves their agenda.

In this article, we delve into the history and background of the extraordinary Afrikaners and their achievements for a small population.

The arrival of Jan van Riebeeck, a Dutch navigator and colonial administrator, at Table Bay (Cape of Good Hope) marked the beginning of permanent European settlement in the region. Credit:Charles Bell, painter (1813-1882).

A Concise Ethnic History of South Africa

South Africa’s ethnic history is a multifaceted tapestry influenced with various ethnic groups contributing to its vast diversity. Below is a succinct overview of the ethnic group’s resident in the land.

Bushmen (San):

The San, commonly known as “Bushmen,” are the earliest inhabitants of Southern Africa. They were hunter-gatherers, existing in nomadic bands throughout South Africa, Botswana, and Namibia.

The San were progressively displaced by the Khoikhoi and particularly Bantu migrations. Many were killed, enslaved, or assimilated into these communities, although some descendants of the San endure today.

Hottentots (Khoikhoi):

The Khoikhoi, a pastoralist community, likely migrated to Southern Africa approximately 2,000 years ago from regions further north. They share a close relationship with the San, collectively termed Khoisan due to their linguistic and cultural similarities, representing a blend of San and Bantu.

In contrast to the San, the Khoikhoi were herders, raising cattle and sheep, which facilitated a more settled way of life. They resided in semi-nomadic communities and engaged in trade with neighbouring groups.

Origin of the Bushmen and Hottentots:

The Bushmen and Hottentots (termed Khoikhoi or Capoids by anthropologists) are traced to North Africa by Professor Coon and others (C. Coon, The Origin of the Races, p. 649).  Who are they and why are they so different to the Bantu and other African peoples?

In many legends along the fringes of the Sahara Desert, mention is made of a non-Caucasoid race whose ancestors were originally in the mountains but moved down to the Dades Valley and found the area occupied by a yellow-skinned race.  These they conquered and they soon mixed with the African slaves, producing the Haratin serfs.  These Haratin look surprisingly like the Hottentots and to support his claim, Professor Coon produces a photograph of these Haratin (C. Coon, The Living races of Mankind, p. 117).  Of further evidence of their origins is that of the Hottentot’s cattle.  Their cattle are of the long-horned variety, originating in Northeast Africa, and are quite different to the small-horned variety of the nearby Bantu tribes (ibid, plate 160).

Gradually, the Hottentots moved eastward.  A stone in the wall of Deir-el-Bahari, close to Thebes, mentions an expedition of Queen Hatshepsut (c1493 BC).  In this inscription, the Queen of Punt is shown to be of undoubtedly the Hottentot race (A. Toussaint, History of the Indian Ocean, pp. 13-14; See also D. Rohl Legend. The Genesis of Civilisation, p. 298).  They moved down the coast, being pushed further and further south by the advancing Africans.  The nearest surviving type to them is the Nama tribe in Namibia numbering 230,000 persons in the region.

They are clearly a mixed people.  Topinard writes that they have “a yellow-brown or grey skin …  Their thick, broad, and prominent cheek-bones, and their small and oblique palpobral apertures… remind one of the Chinese races” (P. Topinard, Elements d’Anthropologie Générale, p. 493). Their cephalic index is 74, in between that of the Bushmen and the Africans. In summary, one must conclude that the “Hottentots are hybrids between the Bushmen and the Bantu” (R. Dart “Recent Discoveries Bearing on Human History in Southern Africa”, The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol. 70, No. 1 (1940), p. 16).

A Haratin in North Africa

But what of the Bushmen themselves?  What is their origin?  They originated in North Africa too.  Traces of them may still be witnessed in North Africa amongst certain Berbers.  Professor Coon once again presents a photograph to prove his point (Coon, ibid, plate 154).  They, like the Hottentots, also moved into East Africa.  Researchers have found that their language is similar to that of the East African Cushites.  One states that “… the Bush-Hottentot languages are so intimately related to the Hamitic group of languages” (Dart, ibid, p. 22).

Taylor refers to Artemidorus (c270 BC) who makes mention of a group of troglodytes in the eastern desert, who were nomads.  They were virtually naked, running around in nothing but a small skin, carrying with them clubs and bows (G. Taylor, Environment and Nation, p. 138) like the Bushmen.  They buried their dead under a heap of stones which were surmounted by a goat’s horn.  This is a Bushmen custom.  Even female types of the Bushmen and statuettes have been found in Egyptian tombs (Dart, ibid).

Among the Duwwud in Libya and others in Tanzania are the remnants of these people (C. Coon, The Origin of the Races, p. 648).  And small bushman-like midgets are still extant in East Africa (the Dorobs) and South Ethiopia (the Doko) (Taylor, ibid, p. 124).  The majority of Bushmen however dwell today in the Kalahari Desert of South Africa and Namibia numbering 100,000.

Their anatomy is quite different to that of the Africans, which means that they cannot be simply another African type.  Their skull, vertebrae and even their feet are quite different because they are a mixed people (Taylor, ibid, p. 123), being a mix of Africans and Mongoloids.  Perhaps they are those referred to as the “mingled” peoples in North Africa referred to in certain scriptures, being associated with Phut, Cush, Libya and Chub. (Jer. 25:20, 24; Ezek 30:5)

Many commentators make mention of the “riddle” of the Bushmen (J. Broek & J. Weber, A Geography of Mankind, p. 80).  They have eye-folds and slanting eyes like that of the Mongoloids, and their skin is a yellow brown colour (Peoples of South Africa, p. 23.).  There has been a discovery “at Outenique (Eastern Cape Province) of ancient skulls with a Mongoloid (Asiatic) faces in the midst of a Bush-Boskopoid population” (Dart, ibid, p. 2).  Dart claims that even

“the old Dutch colonists detected the Mongolian appearance of the Eastern Bush and Pygmy peoples and in the negroes of South Africa, the Sudan and the West Coast” (Dart, ibid, p. 12).

Was there at one time a Mongoloid tribe in Northern Africa cut off from the rest of their race due to the scattering at the tower of Babel?  Did they mix with the Bantu, there producing the Bushmen?  And did further mixing, sometime later, of the Bushmen with the Africans produce the Hottentots?

Bantu-Speaking Peoples:

Bantus migrated southward from West and Central Africa into Southern Africa. These migrations introduced ironworking, agriculture, and intricate social structures to the region.

The major Bantu nations in South Africa are:

• BaPedi (North Sotho)
• BaSotho (South Sotho)
• BaTswana
• South Ndebele
• Swazi
• Tsonga
• Venda (including the Lemba referred to below)
• Xhosa
• Zulu

They are as distinct from one another as the various nations that once made up the former Yugoslavia. The Bantu established chiefdoms and kingdoms, including the Zulu Kingdom under the famous Shaka in the 19th century. These Bantu nations engaged in fierce conflicts with one another, particularly during a time known as the Mfecane, and later with the Afrikaners and the British. The Mfecane was a period marked by extensive warfare and population displacement in southern Africa from around 1815 to 1840 – akin to a Bantu world war that spread from East Africa into the southern regions.

One Bantu ethnic group is of special interest. A small tribe living among the Venda is the Lemba, who have kept themselves separate and do not intermarry with any other black tribes, calling them all “pagans”.

“Their faces, although black, show Semitic features. The Semitic factor is further stressed by the fact that they do not eat pork, nor any animals which are not kosher – killed by slitting the throat. They also practice circumcision …” (J. A. Hofmeyer, The Lemba (1967), p. 82).

Some consider themselves Jews and others as Christians or Muslims.

For the Jewish elements, strangers are not permitted to attend their religious ceremonies (S. Itzkoff, “Fossil Humans: The End of Ideology?”, The Mankind Quarterly, Vol. 19, Nos. 1&2 (1988), p. 121), they wear skull caps, have slightly lighter skins than the other Bantu and rest on Saturdays. They consist of 13 clans, 6 of which clearly comprise Arabic names (N. J. Warmelo, “The Classification of Cultural Groups”, in W. D. Hammond-Tooke, The Bantu-speaking Peoples of Southern Africa (1974), p. 82) numbering only about 70,000 in South Africa, but a few others may be found in Zimbabwe, Mozambique and Malawi.

Some have traditions remarkably similar to the story of Esau and Jacob, the ark of the covenant and a god who protects a chosen people on the move. Many words in their vocabularies are very similar to Indian and Arabic (Warmelo, ibid, pp. 58-59.). Their tradition has them migrating to the Yemen, crossing the Red Sea, they left the Falashas behind in East Africa as they migrated southwards (N. Wade, “Group in Africa has Jewish Roots, DNA Indicates”, New York Times, 9 May 1999). It should be emphasised that the amount of Jewish or Semitic DNA is tiny and shows that there was contact many generations ago. In 2001, a documentary was shown on Foxtel cable television on the subject with the misnomer Sons of Abraham: the Lemba which is worth viewing.

Conclusion: The Lemba are Bantu who picked up some Semitic practices from Middle Eastern traders centuries and there was some, though limited, inter-mingling.

Afrikaners:

Afrikaners, commonly referred to as Boers, are the descendants of mainly Dutch settlers who arrived at the Cape of Good Hope in 1652 under the auspices of the Dutch East India Company. Over the years, they were joined by French Huguenots, Germans, and others, resulting in the formation of a distinct ethnic group.

The Afrikaners cultivated a unique culture, language (Afrikaans), and identity closely linked to agriculture and a Calvinist world view.

They encountered conflicts with Bantu-speaking groups during the Great Trek and frontier wars, and later with the British during the Anglo-Boer Wars (1899-1902). Their political supremacy in the 20th century culminated in the establishment of apartheid, a system characterised by racial segregation.

Also known as the Voortrekkers, they established Boer republics like the Orange Free State and Transvaal; however, the discovery of minerals (diamonds in 1867 and gold in 1886) prompted British intervention and the Anglo-Boer Wars (1880-1881 and 1899-1902). The latter conflict was catastrophic, with British concentration camps resulting in approximately 28,000 Boer fatalities, predominantly among women and children. The defeat led to the unification of South Africa in 1910, yet Afrikaners regained influence through nationalism.

The Afrikaner-led National Party triumphed in the 1948 elections, implementing apartheid– a system of racial segregation that persisted until 1994, when democratic elections were held under Nelson Mandela. Presently, Afrikaners number around 2.7-3.5 million, primarily in South Africa, with a diaspora overseas. They maintain their culture through Afrikaans literature, music, and sports such as rugby, but they face challenges including land expropriation, farm attacks, oppression.

In the 1970s, the South African government covertly engaged with certain French-speaking West African nations and the Soviet Union for trade and, in some instances, for peace initiatives. These interactions were motivated by South Africa’s need to navigate international isolation and sanctions resulting from its apartheid policies. However, these initiatives failed to produce the lasting benefits the government sought.

British:

The British initially occupied the Cape Colony in 1795, formally annexing it in 1806. They introduced administrators, settlers, and missionaries, thereby establishing a notable presence in the 19th century, especially following the arrival of the 1820 Settlers in the Eastern Cape province through the town of Port Elizabeth.

The British engaged in conflicts against both Bantu groups (such as the Xhosa Wars) and Afrikaners (during the Anglo-Boer Wars). Their colonial policies established the foundation for South Africa’s contemporary economy, while simultaneously exacerbating racial divisions. Descendants of the British, commonly known as Anglo-South Africans, constitute a significant minority, numbering approximately 1.8 million.

In addition, the country has Cape Coloureds (4.2 million), Indians (1.2 million), Malays (325,000) and Chinese (300,000) inhabitants.

Currently, South Africa has an estimated population of around 64 million, with Bantu-speaking groups (including Zulu and Xhosa) accounting for about 80%, Afrikaners making up roughly 5-6%, and individuals of British descent representing a smaller minority. The impact of these ethnic histories continues to shape South Africa’s social, political, and economic environment.

Zulu Traditions of the Battle of Blood River

There exists a Zulu oral tradition recounted by survivors of the Battle of Blood River (which took place on 16 December 1838, between the Voortrekker Boers and Zulu forces) that tells of a supernatural vision that contributed to their defeat. According to accounts that have been passed down and shared with Boer families in subsequent years, Zulu warriors gazed toward a nearby mountain during a pivotal moment in the battle and perceived what they believed to be a phantom army charging toward them. This apparition featured a significant number of cavalrymen on white horses, adorned with flowing banners, led by a solitary figure on a white horse wielding a long knife (which they described as a sword). The sight incited panic, causing many to flee and ultimately disrupting the Zulu assault.

This vision was not witnessed by the Voortrekkers or the seasoned Zulu warriors, and some dismissed it as mere “Zulu stories.” Nevertheless, it has been preserved in historical accounts as a potential explanation for the abrupt rout, alongside factors such as Boer firepower and tactics.

The Battle of Blood River arose from the betrayal of Zulu King Dingane: after signing a land treaty with Trekker leader Piet Retief, Dingane orchestrated the massacre of Retief and his party at uMgungundlovu, followed by assaults on Trekker encampments that resulted in the deaths of approximately 500 settlers during the Weenen massacre. In retaliation, 464 Voortrekkers under Andries Pretorius established a defensive laager (wagon circle) by the Ncome River. Prior to the battle, they made a vow to God for victory, pledging to commemorate the day if they were successful. Confronting 25,000-30,000 Zulu warriors, the Voortrekkers employed superior firearms and tactics to fend off successive attacks, inflicting over 3,000 Zulu casualties while sustaining only three minor injuries. The river was reportedly stained red with blood, which gave the battle its name. This decisive victory weakened Dingane’s forces, facilitating the establishment of the Republic of Natalia and symbolizing divine favor in Afrikaner tradition, later commemorated as the Day of the Vow (now recognized as South Africa’s Day of Reconciliation).

Port Elizabeth library (1901)

Achievements

For a small power, South Africa has a history of exceptional achievements across medical, military, and technological fields. Below is a concise overview of these accomplishments:

• First Heart Transplant by Dr Christiaan Barnard, 3 December 1967.
• Atlas Cheetah Fighter Jet developed in the 1980s.
• Nuclear bomb developed during a covert nuclear weapons program in the 1970s and 1980s. By 1989, it had built six nuclear devices, with a seventh under construction, before President F.W. de Klerk ordered their dismantlement in 1991.
• Other notable achievements include the Rooivalk Attack Helicopter; Sasol’s Synthetic Fuel Technology – the pioneering of coal-to-liquid and gas-to-liquid (GTL) technologies; contributed to developing the CAT scan through physicist Allan Cormack, who won the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1979 for his work on X-ray imaging; the country is a key host for a massive international radio telescope project. Its MeerKAT telescope, has already made significant astronomical discoveries.

South African flag 1928-94

For information on the evolution of the flag refer to https://samilhistory.com/2017/03/15/the-inconvenient-and-unknown-history-of-south-africas-national-flags

Afrikaner Links to Ancient Israel

In 1973 or 1974 I purchased a booklet titled Strange Parallel. The Netherlands a Tribe of Israel. It was updated and republished several times and is still available for purchase online.

There is a belief that Afrikaners, who are primarily descendants of Dutch settlers, are associated with the biblical Tribe of Zebulun (with possible connections made to the tribes of Issachar and Simeon). The theory proposes that certain contemporary populations, particularly those of European ancestry, have ties to the Lost Tribes of Israel. In particular, some references suggest that the Dutch, and consequently Afrikaners, may trace their lineage back to the Tribe of Zebulun due to cultural and historical similarities. In the following sections, I will examine this assertion and any related traditions, drawing upon available data and critical evaluation.

Zebulun was one of the Twelve Tribes of Israel, descended from Zebulun, the sixth son of Jacob and Leah (Genesis 30:20). This tribe was linked to maritime trade and commerce, as indicated by Jacob’s blessing: “Zebulun shall dwell at the shore of the sea; he shall become a haven for ships, and his border shall be at Sidon” (Genesis 49:13). Moses’ blessing further highlights Zebulun’s prosperity derived from the seas (Deuteronomy 33:18-19). The territory of this tribe was located in northern Israel, near the Sea of Galilee, and they were recognized for their support of the tribe of Issachar through their trade wealth.

Historically, the Dutch have been regarded as adept seafarers and traders, particularly during the Dutch Golden Age (17th century), when they held a dominant position in global trade through the Dutch East India Company. This reputation aligns with Zebulun’s biblical connection to maritime commerce and “havens for ships.” Rotterdam, a significant global port, along with Holland’s affluence from maritime endeavours, is thought to be fulfilling Zebulun’s blessings regarding “sucking the abundance of the seas” (Deuteronomy 33:19).

Advocates of Afrikaner culture, which prioritizes community, commerce, and agricultural efficiency, perceive it as a reflection of Zebulun’s associations with “home, productivity, and fertility.”

What now South Africa?

Pre-1948 South Africa saw a progression of segregationist policies and laws that laid the foundation for apartheid (segregation). In effect, apartheid was already in existence between the various Bantu nations and between the Whites and Bantu but further developed under the Afrikaner. For example there were the 1797-1906 Pass Laws; 1835-1848 Post-slavery Ordinances; 1892-1910 Voting Restrictions; 1894-1936 Land Restrictions : The 1894 Glen Grey Act, 1913 Natives Land Act, and 1936 Native Trust and Land Act limited Black land ownership and such like.

A major plank of the Afrikaners was to ensure that each of the Bantu nations would be provided a homeland, and they attempted to do so.

All ethnic groups deserve a homeland so that they may maintain their identity and culture. The Afrikaners were promised a separate homeland as part of the negotiations to transfer power to Black rule in 1994. The elites cunningly deceived them and never delivered on this promise. Not long after the transfer of power, the various Bantustans which were generally ruled by Christian chieftains were overthrown forcibly and South Africa has been on a downtrend ever since.

Right now South Africa is on the brink. The several Bantu nations cannot get on with each other. White farmers are being murdered, and crime is rising exponentially. The economy is collapsing, and the 8 million illegal migrants do not help the situation. Civil war seems almost inevitable.

Whatever the outcome, Christ will be returning as Messiah to rescue scattered tribes of Israel and bringing them to the Holy Land in accordance with many prophecies. He will also be conquering the non-Israelitish peoples and bringing them under His government.

One prophecy suggest that this will be the case: Zephaniah 3:10  states that “From beyond the rivers of Ethiopia my suppliants, even the daughter of my dispersed, shall bring mine offering”. This may be interpreted as a prophesy of the return of remnant Israelites from southern Africa.

The Messiah shall indeed return and implement a new order over this world, rescuing the Israelites from a terrible fate and uplifting all peoples to new heights.

World News and Prophecy Review

July 14, 2025

Few crimes strike the human conscience with such forceful revulsion as the trafficking and exploitation of children. It is a crime that is not only vile in action but deeply prophetic in nature—an unholy practice that points to the collapse of moral restraint and the emergence of a spiritually bankrupt world system. As we trace the increasing prevalence of this crime in modern society, we must ask: Does the Bible foresee this evil in the last days? The answer, unsettling as it may be, is yes.

---

A Cabal of Darkness in High Places

It has become increasingly difficult to dismiss the notion that child trafficking is not merely the work of rogue criminals, but a systematic operation involving powerful individuals. The names associated with Jeffrey Epstein and his extensive network—many of them cloaked in political, financial, and cultural influence—have emerged as a troubling signpost of the times. The elite class, once presumed to be guardians of social order, now shows signs of complicity in its greatest betrayals. When the innocent are exploited by those in power, we are no longer dealing with isolated sin—we are witnessing systemic corruption that mirrors biblical warnings.

But perhaps what is even more disheartening is the silence—or inaction—of those who once promised justice.

What Happened to the Rescue?

In the years leading up to 2020, the Trump administration publicly promised to target child traffickers and begin a process of rescuing the estimated 350,000 children who had reportedly been brought into the United States and subsequently disappeared. It was a declaration met with cautious hope by many who have long prayed for exposure and justice. Yet, as months passed, many began to ask: Where are the results? Why have these operations gone dark? Why have names not been named, networks not dismantled, and children not returned?

The issue transcends partisan politics. If such a crime exists on this scale—as many credible investigations suggest—then every administration that fails to confront it becomes complicit. America cannot plead ignorance. The trail of silence, sealed records, and closed investigations stands as an indictment against a nation that once called itself a light to the world.

---

The Prophetic Portrait of a Corrupt World

Paul’s words in 2 Timothy 3:1–5, 13 (NKJV) describe the characteristics of society in the last days:

“But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come:
For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good…
having a form of godliness but denying its power…
But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.”

These are not merely descriptions of common social decay. They speak of leadership. “Lovers of themselves,” “brutal,” “without self-control,” and “despisers of good” describe individuals intoxicated with power and void of empathy. That such traits are increasingly normalized among world leaders, influencers, and policy-makers is not accidental. It is prophetic fulfillment. The depravity we are seeing is top-down—and it is poisoning the nations.

---

When Justice Is Delayed

One of the most sobering warnings in Scripture speaks directly to our current condition:

Ecclesiastes 8:11 (NKJV) “Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.”

When justice is postponed, evil festers. When crimes like child trafficking are not prosecuted swiftly and openly, it emboldens the perpetrators. The silence becomes permission. The lack of exposure becomes cover. And the very foundations of justice are eroded.

This is precisely what we are witnessing. The longer America delays in naming the guilty and rescuing the vulnerable, the more judgment accumulates.

---

The Judgment of Babylon: Commerce in Human Lives

Perhaps the most explicit reference to human trafficking in prophecy appears in the judgment of “Babylon the Great” in Revelation 18. This symbolic end-time entity—often interpreted as a corrupt global system of commerce, false religion, and political power—is condemned for its luxurious living and moral filth. Among its sins is the trading of human lives:

Revelation 18:13 (NKJV)
“…merchandise of… wine, oil, fine flour and wheat, cattle and sheep, horses and chariots, and bodies and souls of men.”

The phrase “bodies and souls of men” is more than poetic—it is forensic. It is a divine indictment of a society that commodifies human beings. Children are not spared in such systems; they are the most sought-after prey for those who have extinguished all conscience.

---

Ancient Echoes: Selling Children for Pleasure

The prophet Joel condemns the enemies of Israel for a crime strikingly similar to what we now call trafficking:

Joel 3:3 (NKJV)
“They have cast lots for My people, have given a boy as payment for a harlot, and sold a girl for wine, that they may drink.”

This is not hyperbole—it is history and prophecy. Children were exchanged for sexual pleasure and intoxication. Today, many of the same dark motivations drive underground markets, except they are enhanced by modern logistics and protected by elite silence. The Internet, private islands, shell corporations, and judicial manipulation form a web of concealment—but God sees.

---

God’s Fierce Anger Toward Those Who Harm Children

The words of Jesus are among the most chilling in Scripture when He describes the fate of those who lead children into sin or abuse:

Matthew 18:6 (NKJV)
“But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea.”

There is no ambiguity here. Divine justice will not delay forever. Those who exploit children may evade earthly prosecution—but they will not escape God.

---

Why We Must Speak

It is tempting to remain silent. The topic is disturbing, and the implications are too dark for casual conversation. Yet silence allows evil to grow. The prophetic message is not one of despair, but of truth before judgment. God’s people are called to expose darkness, not coddle it.

Ephesians 5:11 (NKJV)
“And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them.”

This includes exposing the global apparatus—whether secular or religious—that shields traffickers. From the fallen clergy of religious institutions to the political cover of billionaires and celebrities, the veil is lifting. The rise of global perversion is not just a social crisis; it is a sign of judgment to come.

---

Final Thoughts: America at a Crossroads

Unless America exposes this sin for what it is, it risks sharing in the guilt of those who commit it. Every administration, including the current one, stands before a moral threshold: either confront this crime and protect the innocent—or be counted among those who helped cover it up.

This is not just a political crisis. It is a spiritual test. If justice is not restored, if the children are not rescued, if the abusers are not revealed—then the nation’s judgment is not far off.

There is no place for neutrality in a war against innocence.

As much good as has been done in the past 176 days of President Trumps second term — closing borders, bringing inflation to nearly 0%, the nagging question of the Epstein files cannot simply be dismissed. The American public is not buying the idea that Jeffrey Epstein did not have a client list or wasn’t used by elitist government organizations like the CIA, MI6 and Mossad to compromise politicians, titans of industry, even Kings and Princes of the earth with their participation in child/sexual abuse.

http://www.worldnewsandprophecyreview.com

Please consider sharing this article on your favorite social media platform by clicking the “share” button below.

My friend Mike, from Alabama, texted me 2 days ago wishing me a “happy July 2nd!”

Mike, like his favorite American President, John Adams, thinks we should celebrate the American Independence on the 2nd of July, because the Continental Congress actually voted for independence on July 2, 1776. That was the day they approved Richard Henry Lee’s resolution declaring the colonies free from British rule. John Adams was so convinced this was the pivotal moment that he wrote to his wife Abigail:

“The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America… It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade… from one End of this Continent to the other…”

But July 4 became the celebrated date because that’s when the Declaration of Independence was formally adopted and dated, even though it wasn’t signed until weeks later. The document’s date stamped the public imagination, and July 4 stuck.

Adams refused to participate in July 4 celebrations, believing July 2 was the true date of independence. Jefferson, on the other hand, embraced July 4 as the symbolic birth of the nation, especially since he authored the Declaration.

Their rivalry was more political than personal during their presidencies, but they reconciled later in life and resumed a rich correspondence. Ironically, both men died on July 4, 1826, the 50th anniversary of the Declaration’s adoption — a poetic twist that further cemented July 4 in American lore.

While most of us celebrate July 4 as the official date of Independence, Mike, like Adams, refuses to acknowledge the 4th, which wouldn’t be a problem, except that Mike insists on setting off fireworks in his neighborhood on July 2, to the chagrin of his neighbors, and this year, like so many before, Mike was pretty lonely at his “July 2nd Barbeque.” Mike’s attempts to rally his town to have the kind of “Pomp and Parade,” on July 2, advocated by Adams, has also fallen on deaf ears.

America At War!

On the 249th Anniversary of the founding of America, the nation’s greatest problems are not from outside forces, but from within the nation by subversive forces that have worked against the best interests of the United States for many years.

One of the founding fathers, John Jay, warned of problems within that could potentially wreck the Republic of the United States. In the Federalist No.5, Jay wrote: “Should the people of America divide themselves into three or four nations…envy and jealousy would soon extinguish confidence and affection, and the partial interests of each confederacy…would be apt to inflame their mutual animosities.

Abraham Lincoln addressed the idea of internal threats most famously in his 1838 Lyceum Address, where he said:

“At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.”

Early in the history of the United States, America’s greatest leaders warned that the nation’s greatest potential problems would lie within. Bible Prophecy echos that sentiment, and just as the United States is once again poised to retain its leadership among all nations on earth, evidence shows the nefarious attempts by powerful figures within the United States government and courts to derail the progress of the “American Experiment.”

For instance, in less than a few months, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) uncovered the spending of vast sums of American taxpayer dollars that have been directed to an intricate labyrinth of private non-governmental organizations (NGOs), apparently very little being spent on meaningful programs, and most likely being funneled into the private and secret accounts of politicians and bureaucrats. This alone may explain why career politicians and bureaucrats have net worth far beyond government salaries after spending time in political or government service.

Bible prophecy strongly indicates a major trend of end time conditions within those who occupy offices of influence within the descendants of Jacob, or Israel, as the son of Issac’s name was changed to.

Micah was a prophet whose ministry began during the reigns of some of the latter Kings of Judah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah. Yet his visions not only included a message to Judah, the Southern Kingdom, but the northern Kingdom of Samaria as well.

At the pinnacle of the Nothern Kingdom’s power, Micah was given this incredible and powerful vision:

And I said:
“Hear now, O heads of Jacob,
And you rulers of the house of Israel:
Is it not for you to know justice?
You who hate good and love evil;
Who strip the skin from My people,
And the flesh from their bones;
Who also eat the flesh of My people,
Flay their skin from them,
Break their bones,
And chop them in pieces
Like meat for the pot,
Like flesh in the caldron.” (Micah 3:1-3)

The condemnation is apt, for then and now, as it is the leaders who are entrusted to rule for the good of the people — and America was the first nation in the history of mankind with a government whose intent was to serve the people.

Today, in our 3rd century as a nation, many Americans have taken for granted the freedoms established in the Declaration of Independence, and codified in law, not understanding the connection between the Law given to Moses and Israel as they escaped captivity in Egypt.

Those tribes that left Egypt eventually became nations. Those peoples, named as distinct entities, in Genesis 49, were given a homeland in Cannan, but eventually lost their identity through deportation and captivity. Many of the prophets describe the crimes and lawlessness that caused this, and the Bible makes this very clear — leadership played the most important role in the respective captivities of Israel (Jacob’s 12 sons — tribes — nations) and Judah (the only tribe that retained their identity as they retained the understanding of the Sabbath).

The Parallel of Paul’s Prophecies and the Old Testament Prophets

As we have written before, the Apostle Paul was inspired with an amazing end time prophecy about world leaders. Leadership can change everything in society — for good or bad. In this case the prophetic utterance given to his young protege Timoty is a chilling indictment against those who wield power in the time of the end.

In 2 Timothy 3:1-3, Paul sounded the alarm — for OUR time — the “last days!” He said it would be perilous — even as Jesus told the disciples in the Olivet prophecy — times of vast deception, war, nations raging and threatening one another, with famine, pestilence, earthquakes, sorrow and tribulation. (Matthew 24:3-9)

Paul concluded his review of prophetic events of the perilous end times by stating that “But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.” (2 Peter 3:13)

Paul’s remarkable statement indicates a time when evil is unchecked by good, decency and law. Today, while the Trump administration has uncovered vast amounts of unrighteousness, lawlessness and evil, will the actions of righteous men and women act upon their better instincts, as law and justice demand?

Will there be investigations that are founded in justice to seek out the evil intent of any of the horrendous crimes against humanity of the past few years? Massive illegal immigration, which has led to child and sex trade traffic, untold hundreds of thousands of missing children, the rape and murder of innocents perpetrated by violent repeat offenders allowed into the nation by the previous administration? And swift and just action against those whose intent was to cause chaos and disruption in America?

Many are calling for justice, because instinctively they understand this proverb: “Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.” (Ecclesiastes 8:11)

The French Political philosopher, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in Democracy in America: “Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.”

Will righteous men and women prevail in the United States in the next few years, or will they give way to the kind of men Paul warned about — men who are abusive, traitorous, envious, selfish, greedy, narcissistic, ungodly and evil?

Can you see these types in the world today? Can you recognize how they have taken the reins of power and society and bent them to their own will and ends?

On this anniversary of the most astounding and astonishing foundation of a nation — for the purpose of proclaiming the Good News of God’s Kingdom (Matthew 24:14), may God Bless America!

World News and Prophecy Review

Ps. And Mike — while it is good to be a man and believer in principle — please join the family at the grill in the backyard — the hamburgers and hot dogs are getting cold!

Please consider sharing this article on your favorite social media platform by clicking the “share” button below.

June 20, 2025

Last week riots and demonstrations, began in Los Angeles to protest the Trump administration policy on the deportation of millions of illegal aliens who entered the nation under the previous administration. The rioting and protests then spread to cities across the United States as the “No Kings” demonstrations took place. Some who entered the nation illegally came here for a better life. But many millions have come into the nation with specific agendas, and often times evil intent. Many of them have been “bad actors” and criminals from their native countries.

Openly, during the campaign of 2020, then candidate Joe Biden urged people to “surge” the border, and assurances were given that they would be allowed into the United States. And they were. And they were allowed to apply for social services, and many were given Social Security benefits. Many still receive them.

Enter the Trump administration with the sweeping mandate to reverse the course of illegal immigration. A testimony as to how far standards have fallen, many are angry that the current President is enforcing existing immigration law. Every civilized nation on earth has rules for entry, but apparently, according to some, the United States should not enforce it’s own laws!

What is the possible justification of the Democrat party to allow our borders to be overrun, many of them to “Blue” or Democrat controlled states, or to areas that may be, like Texas, leaning “purple?” One agenda is to give more political control to the Democrat party and ensure the ability to win future state and national elections. With every 740,000 increases in population, into a state, an extra congressional seat is granted. Continuing this policy gives more and more power to the liberal agenda and fulfills the greater overarching agenda of the “Deep State” and Globalist powers to overtake America.

In Deuteronomy 28:43 , we read; “The alien who is among you shall rise higher and higher above you, and you shall come down lower and lower.

In history, there is no clearer fulfillment of this vital prophecy than what occurred during the last 4 years, and there is no nation on the face of the earth that would allow the various national identities represented in the riots of the past 2 weeks to parade the flags of various nations, and burn the American flag in protest against the nation they surged to!

Why The Chaos and Tumult of the 21st Century?

The prophecy Paul gave to Timothy, in 2 Timothy 3, is one of the greatest defining passages of the world we live in today. Notice:

Paul first explained; “But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come:”

And the world has been placed into perilous times!

Paul continued in verse 13 “But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. “

Evil Men and Imposters

And who are these “evil men”? The general population? Many Bible students may think so. But many passages in the Bible alert us that it is the leaders of society who improperly lead others in their ungodly pattern of behavior. Paul asserts in verses 2-4, that these individuals have the power to alter society. They are narcissistic, greedy, haughty, blasphemous, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, despisers of good and traitorous.

These adjectives do not describe the average citizen. Clearly, Paul is indicting the individuals whose self-interest is far greater than their love of country. Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency taskforce exposed the corruption of the Federal government of the United States, along with hundreds of politicians, both Democrat and Republican, as well as many in the bureaucratic state, who have drained billions, and probably, over a period of decades, trillions of American taxpayer dollars that have been directed to non-government organizations (NGOs) which are fronts to legitimize the theft. Most of these are set up to appear as charitable organizations. The tenacles of the corruption run so deep into the political system, and three branches of American government: Executive, Legislative and Judicial, it is impossible to clean up. This is the most likely reason that Elon Musk was highly critical of the latest “Big Beautiful Bill,” after he completed his audit of governmental offices.

Note these two important prophecies regarding the descendants of Israel, or Jacob, in Isaiah 3:14-15: The Lord will enter into judgment With the elders of His people And His princes: “For you have eaten up the vineyard; The plunder of the poor is in your houses.
¹⁵ What do you mean by crushing My people And grinding the faces of the poor?”
Says the Lord God of hosts.

The “elders” and “princes” are the modern political, judicial and business leaders who are culpable in taking advantage of their offices of influence. The “vineyard” is the nation, the people, (Isaiah 5:7) who have been taken advantage of by corrupt leaders

In Micah 3, the prophet addresses the leaders of Jacob — primarily the United States and former British Commonwealth nations. Our modern nation’s leaders are indicted for their role in the exposition of evil and lawlessness and their “cannibalization” of the citizens.

The prophecy of Micah is directed to the descendants of both Judah and Samaria, which includes, respectfully, the remnant of Jews in the modern state of Israel, and the rest of Jacob’s descendants, mostly the English-speaking nations today. Micah condemns the leaders of all these nations for their collective greed, bribery, inequity and lawlessness.

Read these and other “Major” and “Minor” (the 12) prophets for detailed descriptions of the sins of today’s modern leaders.

America At War? Again?

Most of the American public do not want another “endless” war in the Middle East, especially after three decades of war against Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria.

Israel began to send missiles and fighter jets to attack Iran, and it appears the United States is being drawn into another war without clear objectives. Are we to believe that there needs to be “regime change” or is the goal to prevent the nuclear capabilities of Iran?

Whatever the case, Bible and Prophecy students can see the clear implication of a war that could quickly engulf the entire world, as leaders in Pakistan have stated their alliance with Iran, and their call for all Islamic nations to band together to oppose Israel. China has also pledged their assistance to Iran. No surprise there as Iran supplies significant amounts of oil to China.

As of this writing, it is possible that cooler heads will prevail, and that President Trump will deescalate the situation with diplomacy. Let’s hope so!

The Olivet Prophecy

As Jesus counseled His disciples, shortly before His death, He explained what would happen in the world prior to His 2nd coming. Jesus said the “beginning of sorrows” at the time of the end would be “wars and rumors of wars,” with nations and kingdoms in opposition to one another. (Matthew 24:6-7)

From the time of the 1st Century, when Jesus began His Church, deception would also begin with the advent of the preaching of the Gospel of the Kingdom — the promise to establish the Kingdom of God instead of man’s corrupt governments and kingdoms. Jesus covered this broad panorama of prophecy, in verses 4-5 of Matthew 24.

The trends of war, famine, disease, and even earthquakes would increase, Jesus told the disciples, until it reaches a crescendo of “great tribulation.” (Matthew 24:21)

There are many other prophetic details that will unfold, but for now, consider that almost all of these prophecies have their origin in the actions of EVIL men. Many cannot comprehend the level of evil of those in leadership positions.

let’s go back to the beginning of this article and the problem of illegal immigration. As written above, some of the motivation has been to create a permanent voting bloc for the Democrat party in the United States.

But there are more sinister and evil actions that have purposely been sought by a cabal of world leaders. During the great push for immigration into the United States, millions of unaccompanied minors — from newborn babies to younger children, were brought across the borders of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. In addition, many were flown directly into the United States from Panama and elsewhere in Central and South America.

The money for this was supplied by normal, everyday American taxpayers, whose taxes were funded to USAID, a part of the U.S. Government where the DOGE audits took place.

Hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of children from the third world have been brought into the United States from 2020-2024, only to be sold into child labor and sex slavery. They have disappeared. Former Homeland Security Director, Alejandro Mayorkas, questioned by the U. S. Congress admitted such. Such is the evil that many Americans simply cannot fathom because in the land of the “free and the brave,” surely, we could not tolerate such injustice — to young children, and even babies!

World News and Prophecy Review has interviewed I.C.E. (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents who have verified these actions.

The 2023 movie, The Sound of Freedom, captured a small slice of the demonic child trafficking system that has been in place. But what most people don’t know is that the greatest purveyors of child/sex trafficking isn’t the lone and occasional pervert — it is entire governmental systems and officials who are behind it!

Not all elected officials are guilty, of course. But there are enough who a part of these Satanic and Demonic actions, that one of the reasons for the overwhelming anger directed to President Trump is that he is trying to shut of their supply of victims!

What can you do? What we can all do is pray for God’s Kingdom! Share this and other articles to others you know who can pray for the proclamation of the message of the only hope this world has — the establishment of God’s Kingdom on this earth, as the Father and the Son have promised.

The injustice present — yet often hidden, behind the scenes — the work of very evil men, is going to be replaced, soon. Our hope is what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:24-25:

²⁴ After that, the end of everything will happen. Christ will win against every ruler and power and authority. He will give the kingdom to God, the Father. God will rule over everything. ²⁵ Christ himself must rule as king until he has won against all his enemies. (Easy English Bible)

The collaborative effort of God the Father, and the Son is also represented in this spectacular vision given to the prophet Daniel (Daniel 7:13-14):

“I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him.
¹⁴ Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, Which shall not pass away, And His kingdom the one Which shall not be destroyed.”

This — not any of man’s systems or governments — are the only hope and salvation for mankind!

World News and Prophecy Review

Please consider sharing this article on your favorite social media platform by clicking on the “share” button below.

Editor’s Note: One of the major themes of end-time Bible Prophecy is rise of Europe as the most powerful political, economic and military force among nations, just prior to the return of Jesus Christ. Since the establishment of the European Economic Community, (EEC) or “Common Market” by the Treaty of Rome, in 1957, Bible students have looked for signs of a dominant European force and leader which will astonish and amaze the entire world. (Revelation 13:3, Revelation 17:12-13)

The following essay is from Craig White, Historian, Archivist, Bible Scholar and observer of world events. You can follow Craig’s work @ Friends Of Sabbath

Will President Trump be to blame if Europe peels off in a different direction from America? Is he forcing them to look after their own affairs and forge a single military or has this been the trend anyhow?

By Craig M White

With President Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher at the helm of the West during the 1980s, relief was provided from the onslaught of the Soviets without and from the advances of the politically correct Left from within.

Reagan himself called for the Soviets to tear down the Berlin Wall in June 1987 which sent academia, the media and the Left in general berserk, accusing him and conservatives of trying to cause WW3. How similar to the false allegations made against Trump. Yet the Berlin wall fell in 1989 and it was Communism that was sunk. We need to think of political precedence, cycles, rhyming and attempt to “look around corners” like any political analyst or policy analyst/developer, rather than the current knee-jerk reaction by some.

The thinking by some in the 1980s was that after Reagan and Thatcher, the Anglo-Keltic and Scandinavian nations would move far Left-Liberal while Europe would slide extreme Right and militarise.

At that time the EU was fairly conservative, the Pope John Paul II was calling for Europe to: “Revive your roots. Experience again those authentic values that made your history glorious and your presence in other continents beneficial.”

Helmut Kohl and other European leaders were conservative by today’s standards and quite sensible calling for greater European unity and for the continent to take a much larger world role. Germany, he exclaimed must “build the house of Europe”.

“What would be the trigger for the EU to adopt remilitarisation?” I pondered. Could it be a world economic collapse? A mini-American civil war? Or something quite unexpected?

Everything seemed to line up with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the nations of Central Europe gaining independence and joining the European Union (EU) and NATO.

Then the opposite began to occur and accelerate to this day: Europe turned radical Left in social, immigration and economic policies as did the Anglo-Keltic sphere.

Politicians, institutions and society progressed from the liberalism of the late 1960/70s to Political Correctness and on to the next stage, Wokeness exactly as postulated by the Eurocommunists. Wokeness is social Marxism.

“What is Eurocommunism?” you may ask. It is all around you now!

The late 1960s saw the rise of the “New Left” also known as the “New Class”. It emanated out of Western universities heavily influence by the Leninist or Trotskyite variant of Communism in lieu of the Stalinist and later Brezhnevian style of Communism. The latter had become rather nationalist, pro-family, anti-sexual identity such as homosexuality while the Western universities taught the original Communism (and not that of the Stalinist and post-WW2 variety).

The New Left gained traction, in part, due to the disgust with the Soviet oppression that went on in Czechoslovakia in 1968 and leverage they gained off the back of the anti-Vietnam War movement. They found expression in the hippie movement, flower children, Black Panthers, feminism, legalised prostitution, legalised pornography and such like. The New Left were less interested in economics and nationalised industries and put much greater emphasis on sexual freedoms, abortion, euthanasia, globalisation, a world melting pot and the gradual elimination of marriage and the family unit, just like the early Communists. They viewed themselves as humanists striving for the triumph of the individual in place of family and nation – an individual who would be a world citizen, part of a global collective of individuals devoid of restrictions. A World Government would be organised which would liberate mankind from those restrictions allowing it to reach for new heights.

It is this variant of Communism – much closer to the original aims of Marx and co – that they strive for and have unfurled upon the West. Much of this philosophy can be found in DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) policies, also known as social engineering.

Recent Developments: Enter Trump

Trump is now unwinding much of the DEI programs imposed upon American society by the federal government. The media is not too happy about that.

Also, despite the wrist ringing by anti-Trump types and continuing media bias if not outright lying:

“President Donald Trump’s Ukraine policy is doing the opposite of what many think – it is strengthening NATO and investing America in Ukraine’s independence and territorial integrity. But it is doing so in a way that is realistic and is intended actually to work rather than sound nice.” (Eugene Kontorovich, “The True Story Behind Donald Trump’s Stance on NATO and Ukraine”, 19fortyfive.com, 15 March 2025)

This is true realpolitik in action due to the Trump administration’s lateral thinking and not an ad hoc, chaotic and almost childish approach by the European leaders, unable to sort out the problems within the own countries, let alone Ukraine’s. Problems, in many cases, they have themselves inflicted upon their base.

A recent edition of German Foreign Policy contained this insightful statement that should put us all on alert:

“In view of the Trump administration’s power play, calls are getting louder in Germany for the European Union to become an independent force on the global stage. As a statement from the German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP) put it, “Europe must mobilise its ample resources to replace America as a global leader.” Berlin and Brussels are setting out unprecedented spending plans, in the high three-digit billion range, for arming Germany and the EU. Proponents of rapid militarisation want to procure European weaponry rather than American. This view is now being adopted even by traditionally transatlantic-aligned media.” (“We’re a global power”,german-foreign-policy, 10 March 2025)

What is going on? Why this sudden change in stance by the European Union?

Actually, it isn’t a sudden change and any attempt to ‘blame’ Trump for Europe beginning to cleave from America does not fit the historical developments over many years as shall be outlined below. Europe, has, instead, been provoking American and testing its patience. It is to blame for the current strain within the Atlantic Alliance, not America.

So many exaggerations have been published by the left-leaning media about Trump that it is time to equalise out their elitist narrative.

One such narrative is that the whole of Europe is opposed to him and his plans. Is that accurate? To balance this have a read of “European Opposition to Trump is Heavily Overstated”, The American Conservative, 11 March 2025 by Scott McConnell; “Why Tariffs are Good”, Tabletmag, 8 March 2025; “The EU Has Been Imposing Tariffs on American Products for Decades”, TheDailySkeptic, 17 March 2025 by Robert Kogon)

Returning to Kontorovich’s article, he further explains;

“Trump understands that paper promises are worthless and suggested a new approach to cementing alliances – by creating real joint interests. The mineral deal between the two countries makes the U.S. directly invested in Ukraine’s territorial integrity, an interest that will exist across administrations.”

This is realpolitik, not the tripe, emotional frenzy and absolute nonsense that amateurs conjure up without analysis or in-depth understanding. The European recalcitrant brats seem unable to comprehend any of this. Or they are deliberately attempting to stir up an international hornet’s nest against the Trump administration with the support of the international media, universities and various peak bodies such as think-tanks.

All Trump did was provide a fillip for this gradual transformation of the Atlantic Alliance.

For at least twenty-five years, U.S. security experts and leaders have urged their European NATO allies to enhance their defence budgets. Initially, this was a gentle suggestion, but it later escalated to a more forceful demand, culminating in a significant ROAR following the election of President Trump. The European brats have been living off America, draining it of resources for far too long and now it is up to them to look after themselves.

The notable press conference at the White House with President Volodymyr Zelensky on 1 March this year served as a wake-up call for Europeans, prompting them to reconsider their defence expenditures, a development that American analysts have greeted with satisfaction.

European nations are now engaging in a military spending spree to meet an arbitrary GDP target or a specific monetary figure, while acquiring weapon systems favored by lobbyists but lacking in practical relevance, which is an inadequate substitute for a thorough European security strategy.

They seem poised to allocate substantial financial resources without clear justification, disregarding significant recent technological and tactical advancements on the Ukrainian front.

“But we Europeans seem to have an institutional incapacity to think two steps ahead. As a result, we aren’t asking the important questions: such as what capabilities does Ukraine need to win the war? Where are the bottlenecks, and how can we fix them? What are the end-game scenarios? What would be an acceptable second-best outcome? What does it mean to win, or to lose?” (Wolfgang Manchau, “Trump has Europe in check. We have lost the art of strategy”, Unherd, 10 March 2025)

Indeed, this generation of European leaders are cunning and semi-authoritarian, but not that bright!

As such, it seems probable that America is far too powerful for Europe to contend with at the moment. And if Trump gets his policies implemented, America will continue to dominate for a while yet, following in the footsteps of Ronald Reagan (read W. James Antle III, “Trump’s Economy: The Reagan Story and the Biden Story?” The American Conservative, 12 March 2025).

If militarism has proven detrimental to the United States—resulting in extended conflicts that fail to enhance security, undermining the well-being of American society, allowing arms lobbies to dominate its political landscape, and eroding democratic principles—what rationale exists for believing that such militarism would benefit Europe?

In reviewing the literature on the subject of European rearmament, I pose the question: “what if the EU is seized somehow, some day, by the extreme Right?” Given that it will by then have at its disposal a European defence force – or at least the foundations of one – what will it do with it if and when it truly divides from America on political, religious and economic grounds?

Are we seeing unintended consequences in the making?

Let us explore the historical development toward a single European military and where that may lead.

It seems that from now on, there will be no reversion to the status quo ante.

History of Defence chatter

To many observers, including yours truly, the forging of a single European military is axiomatic.

It is important to understand the forces behind a European Defence Force (EDF) and the rationale behind it.

There have been many pan-European white papers, conferences, open debates, think-tank discussions, scholarly articles and papers and even joint naval and army exercises over the years, long prior to the first presidency of Trump. These have always edged toward greater European military cooperation and integration but at a snail’s pace.

Through Trump’s urging, European nations increased their defence spending during his first presidency. It now looks like they will increase spending again, but this time by the extension of debt which is at a shocking level EU-wide (in addition to provincial and local government debts).

Historically, the concept of a European defence force originated in the 1950s, beginning with the proposal for a European Defence Community (EDC) in 1950, which ultimately did not come to fruition.

In October 1950, René Pleven, the Prime Minister of France, put forward a proposal for the establishment of a European Army governed by a supranational authority and financed through a shared budget, referred to as the European Defence Community (EDC). The EDC aimed to function as a multinational defence force within NATO, featuring plans for joint divisions, standardized uniforms, shared weaponry, and a collective budget. Nevertheless, the EDC initiative ultimately failed in 1954 when the French parliament did not ratify the treaty.

In the aftermath of the European Defence Community’s (EDC) failure, discussions commenced to amend the Brussels Treaty of 1948 and to incorporate Germany into NATO, which was successfully achieved in 1955.

In the same year, the West European Union (WEU) was formed to promote military cooperation which even possessed its own Parliament and committees for various cultural and social matters. These committees were transferred to the Council of Europe in 1960 (not to be confused with the EU).

In 1995, the Council of Ministers of the WEU announced the establishment of the European Operational Rapid Force (EUROFOR). This task force became operational in June 1998 as part of the WEU.

To address security and defence matters collectively, in 2003 the EU established the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). Then in 2004, the European Defence Agency (EDA) was founded to improve the development of defence capabilities and to encourage cooperation among EU member states.

In 2010, the ten full Member States of the WEU declared that the organisation would cease operations by the middle of the following year.

In 2011 the EU took over its defence and foreign affairs functions, and the WEU disappeared into history. The meant that the EU now had the legal avenues to forge its own military union.

In 2017, the EU initiated the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO), a framework designed to deepen defence collaboration by jointly developing defence capabilities for EU military operations.

What of nuclear weapons? France has touted that its weapons could be used as a defensive shield for Europe and even stationing some in Germany. That was many years prior to Trump, resuscitated in 2023 when Biden was President and again in 2025. The legal, political and logistical hurdles would be tremendous to overcome to undertake this initiative.

Germany itself is not permitted to build nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and Chemical Weapons Convention.

In addition to this, industry executives claim that limits on finance, export transit permissions, and environmental regulations—all implemented by the EU in collaboration with members of the weapons sector—are impeding investment and growth.

But times are changing, and although the above are serious hurdles, they can be overcome in due course, but this all takes time.

A European Defence Force on the Horizon

In many ways Europe today is fraying at the edges, but it will not always be that way.

Europe must allocate approximately 3.5% of its GDP over the next ten years to adequately prepare its military forces to any possible future Russian threat, independent of any American support. Until this investment is made, the collective military capabilities of Europe will remain susceptible to potential Russian incursions in the Baltic region.

“Europe’s Shock Therapy is Working on Europe” declared Newsweek 22 March 2025. Yet, it will take many years to catch up to America’s awesome power. For example, Rudy Ruitenberg writing in the eminent Defence News, noted that “Europe’s very own missile for piercing air defenses is years away” (17 March 2025).

If Europe were to forge a united military under a single command structure tomorrow, it would take many years to build all the weaponry it needs to come anywhere near America. Let alone operate gigantic global bases.

The previously referred to article in German Foreign Policy continues:

“By embarking on a policy of compulsory militarisation in Europe and moving towards an exclusive focus on national interests for all German activities abroad, Berlin is reviving a longstanding goal of the German elites: namely, to deal with the United States “on an equal footing”. Back in 1966, the then CSU leader and former Defence Minister (1956 to 1962) Franz Josef Strauß spoke out in favour of “a united Europe” rising to “the position of an independent power between the United States and the [then] Soviet Union”.[11] In 2003, Werner Weidenfeld, then an advisor to German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, wrote in an article in the Springer-owned newspaper Die Welt that the EU already had potential strengths that can “define the status of a global power”. Indeed, he saw the EU as superior to the US in some key areas. “The integrated Europe,” he wrote, “is a world power in the making.” Ideas for giving Germany a much stronger role on the world stage have been discussed many times. In 2020, for example, a piece entitled “More courage to assume global power” in the weekly Die Zeit reflected this trend by urging EU leadership in world affairs. The title of an article in the Welt am Sonntag in 2020, co-authored by former International Development Minister Gerd Müller ran “Europe has the makings of a world power.” [emphasis mine]

We should now consider the unintended consequences of a European defence force: What if radical right-wing forces take over the EU?

It appears that Europeans possess an institutional inability to anticipate future developments. Consequently, they fail to pose critical questions, including: what capabilities must Ukraine acquire to achieve victory in the war? What are the existing obstacles, and how can they be addressed?

They are all over the place, confused, incoherent and unable to deliver on the big statements that they make with their big mouths! Such are the brats.

Unbeknown to them, due to their arrogance, it is unlikely that the European Union will remain in its current formation due to its own, internal civilisational fissures.

In a previous article, (Trump 2.0 and the Roots of his Realpolitik) I referenced The Clash of Civilizations by Samuel Huntington and I mentioned that there are fissures within civilisations that can come into conflict, not only between civilisations. Europe itself contains several such mini civilisations:

• Western Europe and Scandinavia
• Central (Mittel) Europa
• South-eastern Europe
• Southern Europe
• East Europe and Russia

Look at the shocking conflict between Russia and the Ukraine – this is an example of conflict within a civilisation even when the people, language and religion are similar.

Yet, consider this: there are huge undercurrents today which are being suppressed by the EU elites. These undercurrents are flowing in the opposite direction to the elites and something has to give.

We are witnessing the tide of European peoples moving toward the right, while the elites crazily hold on to power, pushing Europe ever leftward. Every time in places such as Germany, Austria, Fance, Poland, Rumania or Italy where the centre-right are gaining ground, the elite’s resort to all sorts of undemocratic tactics.

Something big is underway: the European peoples are beginning to move toward the Centre from the left, frustrating the elites. But what if the people of Europe continue to slide even further right while the Anglo-Keltic nations move leftwards in years to come? Europe will need a leader – someone of noble or perhaps royal stock who can galvanise the nations of Europe, leading them on a new, glorious path, historically connected to the Holy Roman Empire of old.

Historian Desmond Seward cynically pondered “… modern communications made possible the Fuhrer-state [Albert Speer said]. If this is really the reason why Hitler was able to do so much more evil than Napoleon–or even only one of the reasons–then technological progress should ensure that the next ‘national saviour’ on the scene will be infinitely more terrible. Antichrist is yet to come. Perhaps the Emperor and the Fuhrer were merely forerunners.” (Napoleon and Hitler: A Comparative Biography, p. 269) [emphasis mine]

NB: Seward is a historian, not a scholar of prophecy, but he knows the cycles of history and what can occur in the future. That a ‘saviour’ may be needed and called on again to save Europe from a fate that would mean that it will no longer exist as a civilization due to the relentless attacks by the woke and globalist Left.

World News & Prophecy Review

Please consider sharing this article on your favorite social media site by clicking the Share button below.