April 6, 2026: World events are moving quickly, and two prophetic trends appear to be converging at the same time. These developments do not require sensational conclusions or speculation. They simply require watching world events through the lens of Bible Prophecy and recognizing patterns that the Bible indicates would emerge in the end time.

Modern “Israel”, “Judah” and the “Gates of those that hate them”

The first trend is the possibility of Israel and Judah becoming entangled together in a military quagmire, weakening both simultaneously.

Bible prophecy indicates that Israel — defined as the descendants of Jacob, his son Joseph, and Joseph’s sons, Manasseh and Ephraim would be dominant among the nations.

The Patriarch Jacob called his 12 sons together at the time of his death (Genesis 49) and pronounced a greater blessing on the descendants of Joseph, as he had claimed Joseph’s sons as his own, in a prophetic sense! In blessing them he prayed; “. . . Let my name be named upon them, And the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; And let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.” (Genesis 48:16)

To that significant promise, he added; “Moreover I have given to you one portion above your brothers, which I took from the hand of the Amorite with my sword and my bow.” (Genesis 48:22) (Emphasis ours, throughout)

Throughout the history of the 12 tribes of Israel, which included Manasseh, Ephraim and Judah, the nation as a whole ascended to great heights as a united Kingdom, especially under the reigns of David and Solomon. But after Solomon’s death, the nation was divided and ten tribes seceded from Judah and Jerusalem and formed their own Kingdom, known throughout history as “Samaria” or “Israel.” Each of these separate nations eventually went into captivity — but separate ones. The northern ten tribes were overtaken and taken to Assyria from 721-718 B.C. Over 100 years later, the nation of Judah was carried away to Babylon, 605-585 B.C.

The point is that these nations were taken captive independent of one another, thousands of years ago. But Bible prophecy suggests that the descendants of Judah and Israel will fall simultaneously in the “time of the end.”

Hosea’s Message

The ancient prophet Hosea had a message for both the House of Israel and Judah, one that included immediate and long-term prophecy. Hosea 5:5 shows an end time fulfillment for both nations: “The pride of Israel testifies to his face; Therefore Israel and Ephraim stumble in their iniquity; Judah also stumbles with them.”

As noted above, the destruction, anciently, of the separate nation states were independent of one another. They never “fell” concurrently, which leads us to believe that at some point these two nations will fall together!

The Modern Nation of Israel and Its Conflicts

With the Balfour Declaration of 1917, essentially guaranteeing the potential for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in the Middle East, many Jews began to emigrate to Palestine, one of the last vestiges of British rule and colonialism after WW2. Of the approximate 16 million Jews in the world, about half live in the State of Israel today.

Another recurrent theme found in end-time prophecy is the rise of the British Empire first, followed by American dominance later. This trend continues to the present time in which it is America which is the backstop to the descendants of “Judah.”

Few could argue that the nation of Israel was able to quickly subdue its enemies in the 1956 during the Suez Crisis (though the loss of control of the canal was a loss of a strategic “gate”). And when Israel was attacked in 1967 and 1973, their victory was deliberate and swift.

But later conflicts in recent years have shown Israel to be more aggressive toward their Islamic neighbors, inviting criticism of methods, objectives and strategy. As with the recent attacks against Iran, the United States has provided substantial military power to help Israel to accomplish Israel’s objective against perceived threats, but the mission of “regime change,” has been an abysmal failure so far.

Hosea 8:14 seems to have a modern application to the most powerful nation of prophetic “Israel” — the United States, as well as the descendants of Judah: “For Israel has forgotten his Maker, And has built temples; Judah also has multiplied fortified cities; But I will send fire upon his cities, And it shall devour his palaces.”

Additionally, Bible Prophecy also strongly indicates a coming rift between these two prominent nations on the world stage today: “Then I cut in two my other staff, Bonds, that I might break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel.” (Zechariah 11:14)

Gates Of Enemies

The second potential prophetic trend at play is the gradual loss of control over the strategic “gates” of our enemies — something that was once a blessing but now appears to be slipping away. (Genesis 26:40) Together, these two developments could signal a major shift in global power and influence.

The current Middle East conflict presents a scenario where Israel conducts preemptive military action, and the United States is drawn into a broader confrontation. This pattern is not new. History shows that limited conflicts can quickly expand beyond their original intent. Vietnam began with advisors and limited objectives. Iraq began with targeted goals and expectations of rapid success. Afghanistan began with a defined mission. Each evolved into prolonged entanglements with no easy exit.

Iran presents an even more complicated scenario. It is geographically large, regionally connected, and strategically positioned. Most importantly, it sits adjacent to one of the most critical choke points in the world — the Strait of Hormuz. Roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil flows through this narrow passage, along with major shipments of natural gas, petrochemical feedstocks, and fertilizer inputs essential to global agriculture. Any sustained disruption there affects not just one region, but the entire world economy.

Recent discussions about potential escalation — including the possibility of U.S. ground operations targeting facilities such as Kharg Island — would mark a significant turning point. Kharg Island is not simply another military objective. It is one of Iran’s primary oil export terminals. Any military engagement involving ground troops in that area would immediately raise the stakes. It would signal that the conflict is moving beyond limited strikes into direct territorial confrontation. Such a move would also heighten the risk of broader retaliation, expanded regional involvement, and prolonged instability.

From a pragmatic standpoint, the concern extends beyond loss of life, though that alone is sobering. The economic consequences of escalating conflict in this region would ripple worldwide. Energy prices would surge. Transportation costs would rise. Fertilizer production would be affected, impacting food prices globally. Manufacturing costs would increase. Inflationary pressures would intensify. These effects would not only impact adversaries but also allies.

Europe, in particular, remains heavily dependent on imported energy and vulnerable to disruptions in Middle Eastern supply chains. If conflict in the Persian Gulf disrupts energy flows, European economies could suffer significantly. This creates a scenario in which American military objectives and allied economic survival may begin to diverge. Bible prophecy suggests that alliances that appear stable today do not necessarily remain so. Economic strain has historically reshaped alliances, and this situation has the potential to do the same.

This leads directly to the second prophetic trend — the gradual loss of the gates of our enemies. Scripture records a promise to Abraham that his descendants would possess the gate of their enemies (Genesis 22:17). For much of modern history, the nations commonly identified with those blessings controlled critical maritime and trade chokepoints. Global sea lanes were secure. Strategic passages were protected. Commerce flowed with relative stability.

Historically, the control of strategic gates did not occur by accident. For much of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the British Empire maintained naval dominance over many of the world’s key maritime chokepoints. These included Gibraltar, the Suez Canal, the Cape of Good Hope route, and critical passages linking Europe to Asia. British sea power helped ensure that global commerce flowed with stability. Trade routes remained open, and strategic waterways were protected.

Following World War II, responsibility for securing global trade routes increasingly shifted to the United States. The U.S. Navy became the dominant force ensuring freedom of navigation. American carrier groups, forward bases, and patrols helped keep open the Strait of Hormuz, the Mediterranean approaches, the Pacific sea lanes, and other vital arteries of global commerce. For decades, this naval presence supported stable trade, lower transportation risk, and predictable energy flows.

This historical continuity is significant. The same nations that inherited the blessings of global influence also assumed responsibility for safeguarding international trade. For generations, this arrangement benefited not only the United States and Britain, but much of the world. Energy shipments moved freely. Goods flowed across oceans. Strategic passages remained open.

Today, however, that stability is increasingly challenged. Several of the most important gates are no longer secure. The Strait of Hormuz faces potential disruption. Red Sea shipping has already been threatened. Other sea lanes are becoming contested. Rather than confidently controlling these gates, the United States now finds itself reacting to instability within them.

This shift represents more than a geopolitical development. It reflects a gradual erosion of the very blessing once promised — the ability to possess and secure the gates of our enemies. When those gates become contested instead of controlled, the consequences extend far beyond military considerations. Trade becomes uncertain. Energy becomes volatile. Alliances begin to shift. Economic pressures mount.

Another dimension is the potential for strategic overreach. Conflicts that begin with limited objectives can evolve quickly once escalation occurs. Military advisors may differ. Intelligence assessments may vary. Objectives may shift. Leaders who originally sought to avoid prolonged wars may find themselves drawn deeper into them as events unfold. History shows that once escalation begins, disengagement becomes far more difficult.

At the same time, there is little evidence that rapid regime change would resolve the situation. Iran has demonstrated resilience under pressure. Leadership losses have not historically produced immediate collapse. Instead, such actions often harden resolve and prolong conflict. This increases the likelihood of a drawn-out confrontation with no clear endpoint.

Taken together, these developments align with two prophetic patterns: Israel and Judah weakened together, and the gradual loss of control over strategic gates. When these occur simultaneously, the result is declining influence, shifting alliances, and the emergence of new global power dynamics. Scripture indicates that such conditions precede significant geopolitical change.

We are not predicting specific outcomes. But we are observing trends. A widening Middle East conflict, pressure on global energy chokepoints, economic strain on allies, and the possibility of escalation involving ground operations all point in the same direction. The consequences would extend far beyond the battlefield. They would affect economies, alliances, and the balance of world power.

If these trends continue, the implications are profound. Israel and Judah could be weakened together. Control of strategic gates could diminish further. Global alliances could shift. Economic pressure could accelerate geopolitical change. These developments align with prophetic warnings long understood.

The Bible indicates that a time would come when national strength declines and global power begins to shift. The convergence of these trends suggests we may be witnessing the early stages of that transition.

World News and Prophecy Review

To receive each edition of World News and Prophecy Review to your email, please subscribe on the Home Page.

(Editor’s Note: The author of this essay is an authoritative source on the history of the Church of God in the 20th and 21st Centuries. Mr. White is a resident of Australia and a frequent contributor to World News and Prophecy Review. His extensive research can be found @ FOS | Friends of Sabbath

By Craig Martin White

Introduction

In the old Worldwide Church of God (WCG) from the earliest editions and especially from the 1950s on, the Plain Truth, Worldwide News, World Tomorrow broadcast (and even in sermons), the Church was very much favourable to conservative politicians and railed against liberal ones. As they should.

The old WCG published articles and booklets against the hippies, flower children, abortion, homosexuality and the decline of the House of Israel. Herbert W Armstrong, the human leader of the Church possessed a sense of urgency from the outset:

His sense of urgency and pleading for a warning message to be broadcast continued over the years. Here are two extracts from letters he wrote on the subject:

“… there is absolutely no purpose in organisation except to facilitate the carrying of the Gospel, and particularly now, in these last days, the last WARNING MESSAGE phase of it to the world.” (p. 1)

“One added thought. It seems to me that our first and paramount duty now, is to shout the WARNING of impending judgments, plagues, and the coming of Christ, as a WITNESS – not the converting of the world, but the sounding of the last WARNING. That should be our FIRST duty, and secondly, the conversion of as many souls as possible, and thirdly, after that, the bringing of people into our spiritual organisation …” (Herbert W Armstrong letter to Otto, 14 Nov 1934, p. 1)

On 7 July 1936 he wrote to Clarence Dodd:

“I believe thoroughly we are, as a church, far ahead of all other denominations, and the only one close enough to the real essential truth to be truly God’s Church.” (p. 1)

“I feel that the radio is destined to be the LOUD VOICE … with which the Third Angel’s Message is to go…

“I believe that when God’s time is here, and He opens the way, that I can produce in the Plain Truth Magazine fully as attractive as the Adventists Sign of the Times, and even more interesting, and with real PUNCH, and INTEREST, and POWER … I believe it will be preached over the air, and published by the printing press.” (p. 2)

“I have fully believed, Bro. Dodd, that the Lord is going to make just such a broadcast as this possible. It cannot of course be financed in our Church. But God has ways of moving on men’s minds and hearts, and in His own time, He will impress the proper ones to come forth with the means.” (p. 2)

Gene Hogberg – the WCG’s political and world news commentator – and other authors – wrote many lines against Jimmy Carter for example and his sell-out of the Panama Canal. Hogberg used to quote conservative politicians and publications and the New Right of those days (eg Conservative Digest, Heritage Foundation, Women Who Want to be Women etc). He wrote about how someday the USA may withdraw from the radical-leftist UNO etc and these institutions may move their Headquarters to Europe – probably Vienna. That NATO could collapse or be restructured etc.

See for example, the Plain Truth article about the US vs Europe issue published 53 years ago: “Cracks in the Atlantic Alliance”, Plain Truth, October 1973. The Church should continue in this vein of analysing world events in the light of Bible prophecy and trumpeting a warning message. Warning our leaders against absurd decisions and our peoples against moral degradation.

Among the articles I have written for various publications and blogs, I posit that these post-WW2 institutions that brought some stability and prosperity to the world, are now so corrupt and Left-Woke-Globalist that they should be abolished as they can no longer be reformed. President Trump and American conservatives/patriots are right to be aghast at how the UNO, UNESCO, WHO, EU, NATO have degenerated even further since the departures of Reagan and Thatcher. Perhaps the World Bank and IMF could be viewed similarly.

Will they transfer to Europe or will successor organisations?

From a political (not prophetic) perspective they should be abolished and replaced with ones where the Anglo-Kelts have the lead.

Trump, despite his bossy approach, is correct on so much of this and the old Plain Truth would have supported him as it did Nixon. Trump seems like a Nixon 2.0:
Richard Nixon often condemned hippies, flower children, black panthers, student radicals, and demonstrators opposing the Vietnam War as disruptive or even lacking patriotism. He referred to certain campus protesters as “bums” who were “blowing up the campuses.” They were pro-gay, pro-abortion etc and anti-family – the opposite to his principles. His administration encountered significant protests, which ignited nationwide turmoil, including the tragic Kent State shootings (where National Guard troops killed four students). Yet he publicly upheld a firm stance against what he perceived as excessive permissiveness and insurrections. He prevented a civil war.

Critics of the Plain Truth magazine complained that it exhibited a pronounced conservative Christian bias and was outspoken against liberal social trends, the counter-culture while championing traditional moral values, and favored right-leaning political leaders while opposing those perceived as weak on Communism, national strength, or Biblical principles.

Even in the 1950s the Church and its publication, the Plain Truth, were considered ‘social conservative. Its World Tomorrow program was similar labelled.

Social Conservatism and Moral Commentary

I cannot refer to every one of the scores of conservative-leaning articles in the WCG’s publications, a selection below provides evidence for its stances,

Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, The Plain Truth portrayed the era’s counter-culture as evidence of societal decay and impending end-times judgment. Movements associated with hippies, drug use, the sexual revolution, and “free love” were depicted as symptoms of crumbling moral foundations. For instance, the April 1971 article “A Faded ” Hippie” Dream . . . Haight-Ashbury Five Years Later” highlighted the Haight-Ashbury district in San Francisco as symbolic of a society in collapse with leftist philosophies and hippie/sexual immorality.

The article “An Editor Looks At The Ten Commandments” In the February 1978 edition indicated that abortion was murder. Similarly, the February 1984 Plain Truth laments:

“Today, abortion (killing) of innocent babies mounts up to a silent holocaust of multiple millions every year. Illegitimate babies account for more and more births; in sections of some cities up to ‘to percent or more of births occur out of wedlock. New social disease terrors have been unloosed on society through loose sexual living.” (“Over 50 Years Of The New Morality Where has it brought us?”)

The article condemned Sigmund Freud, the hippie movement and the consequences. All of this in the prestigious 50^th anniversary of the magazine:

“For 50 years, the Plain Truth magazine has explained the real causes of humanity’s problems and warned of earthshaking punishments from God to wake up nations to the need for God’s supreme rule and authority over their lives. Only this magazine and those behind it will tell you how God’s wonderful plan to restore his government over the earth will soon put mankind back on the right moral/spiritual track!”

The May 1985 edition’s lead article was devoted entirely to the issue: “The Plain Truth About ABORTION! Why So Little Understood?”

Of particular importance is Herbert W Armstrong’s article “A New Truth About Abortion”, The Plain Truth, September 1985. Mr Armstrong categorically states to a readership of millions (in several languages):

“It is not just and only a piece of “fetal tissue,” as abortionists argue, in their attempt to justify human murder.”

Abortion drew particularly sharp condemnation, repeatedly labelled as the “murder” of innocents and a national tragedy, aligning the magazine with pro-life positions common in conservative Christian-nationalist circles.

This social conservatism extended to praise for leaders embodying traditional values and opposition to perceived socialist or liberal excesses. The magazine thus contained both religious articles and political analysis, warning readers that moral and political decline would ultimately result in national downfall. This trend was arrested under President Reagan and Prime Minister Thatcher and celebrated by the magazine.

Favoritism Toward Conservative Leaders

The Plain Truth consistently portrayed certain conservative figures in highly positive terms, often highlighting their sometimes alignment with “Biblical” principles on a number of moral and foreign policy issues.

An example is President Dwight Eisenhower who received a positive obituary “Dwight David Eisenhower 1890 – 1969” in May 1969 following his death. The article celebrated Eisenhower as a “plainspoken, unaffected, simple man” of sincerity, integrity, and humility and a “common man in high office” of good character. He was praised as one of America’s great men, promoting national unity and international strength:

“Another of America’s great men is dead. Another old soldier is gone. Somehow, the death of General Dwight David Eisenhower touched a still tender part of the American heart and perhaps it signalled the passing of more than just a man.”

Richard Nixon enjoyed similar support. The February 1969 issue covered his inauguration optimistically as “The Nixon Inauguration – Beginning Of A New Era?”, suggesting potential for positive change amid global tensions.

The same issue included an article highlighting problems with modern teachers and their ideas and techniques (“Who Will Teach?”)

Another February 1978 piece questioned abandoning U.S. allies, tying into this theme of strategic surrender.

In his article “U.S. Ally To Be Abandoned? Taiwan Faces Grim Future”, Plain Truth, February 1978, Mr Hogberg examined the precarious position of Taiwan amid shifting U.S. foreign policy under President Jimmy Carter. The piece expresses deep concern that the United States is on the verge of betraying or abandoning its long-time ally, Taiwan.

Ronald Reagan garnered enthusiastic coverage. Articles praised his 1980 landslide victory, communication skills, decisiveness, and conservative values. The September 1984 issue analysed his re-election as “The Election Of The Decade,” lauding his economic recovery, military buildup, and conservative values. Reagan’s anti-Soviet stance aligned with the magazine’s anti-communist outlook. The article even included disdain for Jimmy Carter:

“Ever since the 1972 campaign a large gap has opened between the two parties in foreign affairs. This widening breach in the U.S. world view became apparent with the election of Jimmy Carter in 1976.”

Some would even view the February 1981 edition as ‘political’ due to its pro-Reagan stance in the article “America’s New Leadership” and others such as “How Husbands should lead the Family”, “Now they want to De-Sex the Bible” and “What God expects from Human Leaders”. The latter is a MUST read.

The domestic and international protests by students (stirred up by their lecturers and professors) was extensive. Framing themselves as wanting peace and “anti-war protestors”, they were mere stooges of the Communists. Reagan was portrayed as a Christian war-monger who would use prophecies found in Ezekiel 38 as a pretext for war with Soviet Russia and that he would force his Christian views on the secular element within society.

Margaret Thatcher received similar acclaim. Pieces, such as the August 1979’s “Britain At The Brink,” celebrated her 1979 election victory as a corrective to economic and social decline and her promise to undo leftist policies. She stated that she wanted to restore national morale.

In an article titled “London—Where Violence Runs Rampant” published in The Plain Truth magazine, September 1981 issue, the 1981 UK riots (including Brixton and subsequent outbreaks in Liverpool, Manchester, and elsewhere), were discussed as part of a broader surge in violent crime and societal breakdown in Britain. It endorses Margaret Thatcher’s views on law and order by agreeing with her public statements that unemployment was not the primary cause of the riots.

Gene Hogberg’s lengthy article “Seagate Under Siege. Showdown in South Atlantic” in the June 1982 Plain Truth lamented a possible loss of the strategic Falkland Islands and warned what this might portend.

In the August edition, an article appeared lamenting “Falklands Crisis Signals DECLINE OF THE WEST”:

“They [Britain and America] have not kept the Ten Commandments. Both nationally and individually, lawlessness is a way of life in Britain and North America, and Australia and New Zealand, too. If God’s promised blessing fell on us, he also promised to carry out national punishments if the patriarchs’ descendants would persist in disobedience. God said he would “break the pride” of the power of Jacob’s descendants (Lev. 26: 19). One by one the powerful overseas bases and gates of both America and Britain are being dismantled or taken over by other nations.”

The magazine could see the trends, but was decades ahead of its time!

Upon her assuming office, years of protest in Britain and abroad continued – often with violence – portraying her as a “fascist” and “cold war warrior” who would lead the West into a disastrous confrontation with the Soviets. “Better red that dead” was the chant of the student protestors. They and the media did all they could to undermine her. They even wanted her to give up the Falkland Islands.

The policy of both her and Reagan were mainly for short, sharp battles and support for opposition forces – Grenada, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Libya. Not unlike Trump’s policies.

The same issue contains a powerful article proving that homosexuality and transvestism are not inherited from birth (“Is It True Some Are Born That Way”?)

The February 1983 issue featured her on the cover with the byline of “Britain’s Iron Lady” presenting her as a strong conservative leader.

Gene Hogberg, the longtime news editor, reinforced this through his “Worldwatch” columns in The Plain Truth and in regular columns in the Worldwide News. His writings favoured the aforementioned conservative figures (Reagan and Thatcher), critiqued left-leaning movements (e.g., nuclear-freeze protests in 1982), and analysed global shifts in conservative terms. Today he would certainly be sympathetic toward the Trump administration despite Trump’s brashness. After all, a revitalised America, push-back against declining national morals and health issues are far more important than personality failings.

In the Plain Truth he showed clear favourability toward Nixon in articles such as “Now Emerging A New Balance of Power” (May 1972) and “America Confronts The New Soviet Challenge” (August 1972).

His conservative stance in the Worldwide News are too numerous to reference. However, one that may be of interest is Bermuda sea gate faces uncertain future” which you can find in the 15 November 1982 edition.

Criticism of Liberal or Perceived Weak Leadership: The Case of Jimmy Carter

In contrast, Jimmy Carter faced criticism for policies seen as liberal and misaligned with Biblical values. A February 1981 article (“The Plain Truth About the So-Called Christian Right”) examines the “Christian Right” (e.g., Moral Majority) mobilising against Carter in 1980, criticising his support for radical feminist causes, abortion, non-traditional families (e.g., including communes and homosexual relationships in White House conferences), and evolution:

“Groups like the Moral Majority and Christian Voice played a big role in last year’s U.S. elections. The rise of this “Christian Right” has caused a near-hysterical reaction in some quarters- critics warn of “goose stepping,” and “moral fascism.” What is the real meaning behind the increasing involvement of fundamentalist and evangelical religious groups in this world’s politics?…

A Modern Josiah?

Nevertheless, it is possible that at least a temporary change of direction- or slowing of the decline- is in the offing. Such would parallel events of about 2,500 years ago. Just before the ancient nation of Judah fell, it had one last king who stemmed the tide- Josiah.”

Today we have the same shrieking from the Left and misinformed Christians (including elders) in the Church about how bad Christian Nationalists, Populists and Trump are, not realizing that the current conservative trend in America and other place is merely the next wave of this movement.

Foreign policy provided another point of contention, particularly the Panama Canal treaty. The Plain Truth viewed the canal as a strategic “sea gate” promised to Anglo-Keltic American descendants of Israel. Its potential loss signalled national decline.

The July 1977 issue featured Gene Hogberg’s “Canal Zone Handover? America’s Strategic Surrender,” criticising the impending transfer as a dangerous retreat and framing it as part of broader American weakness.

Amazingly, the November 1965 Plain Truth (“Will the U.S. LOSE the Panama Canal?”) warned:

“We said before, and we repeat: America will not keep the Canal! We have already LOST OUT … The pity is we are backing down like weak-kneed simpletons. As a Reader’s Digest article in April 1964 put it, “Panama: the crisis we could have avoided.” The pity is, our own stupid mistakes are costing us our greatest foreign possession!”

The February 1978 article, “America’s National Goal – Appeasement,” delivered a scathing critique. It argued that the U.S. lacked purpose, retreating globally to appease others and atone for past actions. The canal handover exemplified this policy, alongside selective human rights focus (condemning Rhodesia and South Africa while ignoring communist atrocities); and Jimmy Carter’s soft approach against international inroads by Communism. The article predicted further decline per Biblical prophecies such as those found in Ezekiel 7:14 and Leviticus 26:17.

Carter’s loading his Cabinet and chief positions in the public service with leftists was also highlighted in articles.

Our Legacy and Responsibility

Today we must continue to SPEAK OUT against national social sins such as LGBTQ, liberal divorce policy, pornography, legalised prostitution, women ministers, gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia, mass immigration, the Great Replacement and such like. From its outset the Plain Truth was all about WARNING the Israelites as well as other nations.

At the political analytical level, the Church must TRUMPET a warning about ludicrous if not treacherous decisions to give away the Chagos Islands, leading to aggressor nations seeking to move into the vacuum.

It should support and praise good foreign policy decisions and attempts to reverse radical Left, Globalist and Woke domestic legislation and policies.

Herbert Armstrong’s concerns on the state of the Church in the 1930s echoes today. In a letter dated 11 April 1937 to Church of God (the one based in Salem, West Virginia) leader, Andrew Dugger he stated:

“I know God has called me to His ministry … I know He has fitted me specially for the radio work …” (p. 1)

“Brother Dugger, SOMETHING HAS BEEN WRONG with the Church of God. It has not GONE FORWARD with the P O W E R it should. Why? There is a REASON! …

“WHY have we been declaring the Third Angel’s Message [i.e., the warning message by the Church at that time] with such a pitifully weak whisper? …

“The Church of God IS AT THE CROSSROADS!” (p. 3)

“… I sent you the manuscript of a complete book I had written on the ISRAEL question then entitled “The Third Angel’s Message.” [this work evolved into the book The United States and Britain in Prophecy] I believe (and which book, re-written, is now being published, incidentally), and I repeatedly wrote you asking “AM I RIGHT on this question … [you replied] saying I surely WAS RIGHT, and that you say a purpose in the Lord revealing this truth to me at this time. Yet nothing was ever done with this truth…

“This has become a Church stand, I believe, not merely your personal stand – – but I have become convinced from these several incidents that you have taken the stand that we must CLOSE THE DOOR to advancing light and truth, or to purging out any possible error in present teachings…

“But the Church has come to a CRISIS, and its fate will be decided in about five weeks … So I beg of you – – I plead with you, IN JESUS NAME, for the sake of the Church, for the sake of the souls, for your own person sake, will you not now COME OUT BOLDLY WITH THE STAND THAT THE CHURCH WILL KEEP THE DOORS OPEN TO ADVANCING LIGHT AND TRUTH?” (p. 3) [emphasis mine]

May God grant our leaders wisdom in all of this. Because we know, if we have more American leaders like Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama or Joe Biden (let alone those in Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Scandinavia), the nations of the House of Israel will fall. God will raise up fascist and militaristic nations to bring these nations to heel – to punish them in an effort to bring them to repentance and ultimately to bless them as never before.

World News and Prophecy Review

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

(January 21, 2026, Davos, Switzerland) For decades, the global elite have presented globalism as inevitable, benevolent, and morally superior to national sovereignty. From the annual gatherings of the World Economic Forum to the language of “stakeholder capitalism,” citizens have been told that borders are obsolete, national identity is dangerous, and centralized technocratic control is the future.

But history—and prophecy—suggest otherwise.

Recent confrontations by Donald Trump and others against this ideology have been widely mischaracterized by media narratives as bullying, nationalism, or isolationism. In reality, what we are witnessing may be something far more disruptive to the global order: a direct challenge to the post–World War II architecture of global governance itself.

Today, in a highly anticipated speech, President Donald Trump addressed the leaders of the Globalist Elite directly. Many of those attending this annual gathering are the world’s power brokers; bankers, politicians, Presidents, Prime Ministers, Kings and other elitists who have made a living in lecturing the rest of the world as to how nations should be governed and have presented their vision for humanity of the future. In the words of the World Economic Forum founder, Klaus Schwab, his grand vision for mankind are that everyone else will “eat bugs, own nothing, and be happy.”

Enter today — the President of the United States, one of few on the world stage willing to take on those who have sold a false narrative to mankind — that they alone have the answers for the future of mankind. In his speech, the most powerful person in the world, the U.S. President informed these self-made messiahs of mankind that it is in no one’s best interest to follow the failed model of globalism.

---

Globalism on Trial

Globalism promised peace but delivered endless wars. It promised prosperity but concentrated wealth. It promised unity but dissolved cultures.

The institutions born after World War II—designed initially to prevent another global conflict—have gradually transformed into mechanisms of control rather than cooperation. Unelected bodies now exert influence over national economies, borders, energy policy, speech, and even elections.

When these systems are challenged, the response is not debate—it is delegitimization.

Those who question globalism are branded extremists. Those who defend sovereignty are portrayed as threats. This is not the behavior of confident systems—it is the reflex of failing ones.

---

Trump as Disruptor, Not Aggressor

The popular caricature casts Trump as the “schoolyard bully.” But a more accurate analogy is this: he is the one confronting the bully.

Globalism thrives on intimidation—economic, political, and cultural. Nations are pressured into compliance through trade dependency, debt, migration crises, and regulatory capture. Leaders who resist are isolated or removed.

Trump’s confrontations—whether at international forums or through policy—represent a rupture in this pattern. His actions challenge the assumption that global institutions are untouchable.

This is why the backlash is so fierce.

---

Greenland and the Panic of Europe

Nowhere is this clearer than in the reaction to Trump’s remarks about Greenland.

He never proposed invasion. He never suggested coercion.

What he proposed was mutual interest:

• Strategic defense in the Arctic
• Access to rare earth minerals
• A counterbalance to expanding Chinese influence

Yet the response from European elites was immediate and hostile.

Why?

Because Greenland is not just territory—it is strategic leverage. Control of resources, shipping lanes, and defense positions in the Arctic represents future power. And globalists do not want sovereign nations negotiating power independently of centralized frameworks.

The irony is striking: those objecting most loudly are unelected European officials, not the Greenlandic people themselves—raising a fundamental question:

Who truly decides the future of nations—the people, or supranational institutions?

---

Venezuela, China, and the Western Hemisphere

Trump’s actions toward Venezuela were likewise dismissed as reckless—until one considers the broader picture.

The issue was never only narcotics or corruption. It was foreign influence in the Western Hemisphere.

China has invested heavily across Latin America, embedding itself economically, technologically, and politically. Venezuela became a key node in that strategy. Disrupting that influence sends a message: the Monroe Doctrine is not dead.

Whether one agrees with every tactic or not, the objective is unmistakable—rolling back the steady encroachment of rival powers enabled by globalist indifference.

---

Micah’s Startling Prophecy

This brings us to Micah 5:7-9: “The remnant of Jacob will be in the midst of many peoples
like dew from the Lord, like showers on the grass, which do not wait for anyone or depend on man. ⁸ The remnant of Jacob will 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 mauls and mangles as it goes, and no one can rescue.⁹ Your hand will be lifted up in triumph over your enemies, and all your foes will be destroyed.

A Crucial Prophetic Pivot

Micah’s prophecy does not end with dominance. Beginning in verse 10, the tone shifts sharply: “And it shall be in that day… That I will cut off your horses… destroy your chariots…” (Micah 5:10)

This is God removing power from Jacob itself, not from pagan nations.

The Warning Embedded in the Blessing

Micah confirms a recurring biblical principle: Power without righteousness invites judgment.

The same God who grants national greatness also withdraws it when corruption becomes entrenched—just as He did with ancient Israel and Judah.

Why This Matters Today

If modern descendants of Joseph are indeed experiencing a temporary reassertion of power, Micah’s prophecy warns that such moments are not permanent.

They are:

A final opportunity

A test of repentance

A warning before correction

Prophetic Bottom Line

Micah 5 does not promise endless dominance. It foretells a last assertion of strength—followed by divine reckoning.

At the height of Jacob’s power, God cuts it off—not because enemies prevail, but because righteousness fails.

This is where America stands today – still at the height of power – and at a time when moral and political corruption is being exposed.  America’s leadership class are being held accountable, and a nation truly “under God” must recognize its shortcomings and repent.

Europe’s Coming Reckoning

Europe’s reaction to these disruptions may be the most prophetic of all. For decades, European unification has been presented as irreversible. The framers of the Common Market, followed by the European Union have sought unity and strength through relaxing border restrictions, a single currency and a European Parliament.

Yet the results of modern Europe show a collapse of culture, and erasure of national pride, mass immigration without integration, rising Islamic extremism. Clearly, the European experiment has been an abject failure of colossal terms.

If globalism collapses, Europe will be forced to reckon with a truth long suppressed: unity without sovereignty breeds instability, not peace.

---

What Comes Next?

Prophetically, moments like this rarely resolve cleanly.

Challenges to entrenched power provoke backlash.
Backlash produces instability.
Instability accelerates realignment.

Micah foresaw a world where false securities collapse and nations are stripped of their illusions of control.

The demise of Davos, if it comes, will not be polite. It will be resisted. And it will expose where real power—and real accountability—lie.

Europe, now challenged by a powerful personality in the American President, insistent that globalism does not shape the future of the world, is prophesied to revisit its ancient — and some think glorious roots. Revelation chapter 13 is one of the most chilling of end time prophecies. It reveals the resurrection of an unholy alliance of State and Church that will dominate the world, politically, militarily, economically and religiously.

---

Final Thought

Globalism is not failing because of one man.
It is failing because it contradicts human nature, national identity, and ultimately God’s design for nations.

Micah’s prophecy reminds us that no system endures that exalts itself above truth. What we are witnessing may not yet be the end—but it may be the beginning of the end.

And history, once again, is moving faster than those who believed they controlled it.

World News & Prophecy Review

Please direct all correspondence to: WNPR@protonmail.com

Please consider sharing this article with your favorite social media sites, or by email:

January 14, 2026: For most of the last seventy years, Europe has appeared spiritually and politically dormant. War exhaustion, secularism, and the memory of religious violence pushed faith out of public life. But something is quietly changing. Under the pressure of social breakdown, immigration crises, and cultural chaos, Europe is again looking to religion—not merely as private belief, but as moral authority. Speech laws, “hate” legislation, and moral mandates are increasingly being shaped by religious assumptions about right and wrong.

The Bible warned that this would happen.

In Revelation chapters 2 and 3, Jesus Christ gives seven messages to seven churches. Though these letters were sent to each city at the end of the first century AD, but just as Revelation is a book of Prophecy — these letters were intended to show what would happen to the people of God throughout the next 2000 years. Two of these messages—Smyrna and Philadelphia—are uniquely tied together by a common enemy: a powerful religious system that claims to be God’s true people, yet in reality serves a very different master.

Jesus identifies that system with stunning clarity:

Revelation 2:9 (NKJV)
“I know your works, tribulation, and poverty (but you are rich), and I know the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.”

Revelation 3:9 (NKJV)
“Indeed I will make those of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not, but lie—indeed I will make them come and worship before your feet, and to know that I have loved you.”

These verses are not about ethnicity. They are about spiritual identity. To claim to be “a Jew” in the biblical sense means to claim to be part of God’s covenant people (Romans 2:28–29). The “synagogue of Satan” is a religious institution that claims to represent God, yet substitutes human authority, tradition, and political power for God’s Word.

Understanding Smyrna and Philadelphia is essential to understanding what is now emerging in Europe.

---

Smyrna: The Church Crushed by Religious Power

Smyrna represents the era of God’s Church that endured severe persecution, especially from the fourth through the early seventh centuries. This was the period when Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire, beginning under Constantine and enforced by later emperors.

While history often calls this the “triumph” of Christianity, for true believers it was a time of suffering. Those who held to the authority of Scripture, rejected state-controlled religion, and continued to observe biblical teachings were labeled heretics.

Jesus told the Church of Smyrna:

Revelation 2:10 (NKJV) “Do not be afraid of what you are about to suffer. I tell you, the devil will put some of you in prison to test you, and you will suffer persecution for ten days. Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you life as your victor’s crown.”

Under the Roman Emperor Diocletian, under 4 separate edicts, from 303 to 313 AD, those keeping the Sabbath were hunted, imprisoned, tortured and killed throughout the Roman Empire. Diocletian ordered churches destroyed, burned copies of the Holy Scriptures, stripped Christians of civil rights and required citizens of the Empire to offer sacrifices to Roman gods. Jesus said this persecution would last for “ten days,” a period understood to be ten years under the well-known prophetic principle of “day for a year.”

Later, under Emperor Constantine, the Empire continued to persecute those who obeyed the Bible’s commands, such as the 7th Day Sabbath, the 14th of Nisan Passover, as the Roman state amalgamated pagan beliefs such as sun worship and Easter into what became the religion of the state. But it was far removed from the faith of the Church established at Pentecost (Acts 2) after Jesus’ crucifixion.

The persecution of the Smyrna era of the true Church of God would continue for hundreds of years — from a powerful church-state system that claimed to represent Christ. That is why Jesus described it as the “synagogue of Satan.” It wore the clothing of Christianity but carried the spirit of domination and coercion.

Sabbath-keeping believers, those who rejected religious innovations, and those who insisted on Scripture over tradition were driven underground. Many were imprisoned, tortured, or executed. Smyrna was spiritually rich, yet physically poor and oppressed.

---

The Meaning of the “Synagogue of Satan”

The synagogue of Satan is not a group of unbelievers. It is a religious system that claims divine authority while rejecting obedience to God’s law.

It presents itself as the true Church.
It claims to speak for God.
It demands loyalty.
It promises unity and moral order.

But it replaces God’s Word with human tradition and substitutes church authority for Christ’s rule.

Historically, this system aligned itself with political power. It crowned rulers, shaped empires, and enforced religious conformity. When challenged by Scripture, it persecuted those who would not submit.

Smyrna experienced this persecution firsthand.

---

Philadelphia: The Church With an Open Door

After centuries of suppression, God raised up another era of His Church—Philadelphia.

Jesus said of this Church:

Revelation 3:8 (NKJV) “You have a little strength, have kept My word, and have not denied My name… See, I have set before you an open door, and no one can shut it.”

Philadelphia was and is not large or politically powerful. But it restored biblical truth and was given a global mission. God reopened the understanding of Scripture, restored key doctrines, and gave this Church the responsibility of proclaiming the gospel of the Kingdom of God to the world.

The key that helps us to know that public proclamation has not yet been accomplished is found in the Smyrna/Philadelphia connection. Both Church eras were prophesied to come in contact with “the synagogue of Satan.” That has not happened in this modern era.

But Bible prophecy indicates that the Synagogue of Satan will be the dominant religious force in the future, and will persecute the true Church of God (Revelation 12:10-17, Revelation 13:6-7, Daniel 7:25, Daniel 8:24)

These verses indicate — in the future — the incredible power of the coming State/Church alliance.

Before Christ returns to earth to establish His Kingdom, the work of Philadelphia and the opposition of the Synagogue of Satan. This is the connection many believers today miss — because they think the work of Gospel proclamation has already been fulfilled!

Jesus makes the connection clear:

Revelation 3:9 (NKJV)
“Indeed I will make those of the synagogue of Satan… come and worship before your feet, and to know that I have loved you.”

Philadelphia’s mission cannot be complete until it identifies this false system and exposes it.

---

Why This Matters Today

Europe is undergoing a profound transformation. Secularism is collapsing under the weight of social chaos, immigration crises, and moral confusion. Into that vacuum is stepping religion—not simple faith, but a centralized religious authority offering stability, unity, and moral control.

This is exactly what Bible prophecy describes.

2 Thessalonians 2:9–10 (NKJV) speaks of a coming religious deception that uses power, signs, and false righteousness to deceive the world. Revelation 13 shows a religious authority working alongside political power to shape global worship.

This system will look righteous.
It will speak of peace.
It will speak of morality.
It will speak of unity.

But it will suppress biblical truth.

The Philadelphia Church has a prophetic responsibility to warn the world. Smyrna suffered under this system. Philadelphia must expose it.

In the end, Jesus Christ will vindicate His faithful people.

The synagogue of Satan will fall.
The truth of God will stand.
And those who kept His Word will be proven right.

World News and Prophecy Review

Please direct all questions and correspondence to: WNPR@protonmail.com

Consider sharing this article on your favorite social media platforms by clicking the box below:

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