Monday, December 7, 2009

The Antichrist Identity - Part 3


Whilst writing in her book, "The Externalisation of the Hierarchy", in November, 1939 – Alice Bailey's Guiding Spirit supposedly began to address to her the 'Economic Problem'.

"There are adequate resources for the sustenance of human life, and these science can increase and develop... Man is the controller of it all, and they belong to everyone and are the property of no one group, nation, or race. It is solely due to man's selfishness that...thousands are starving whilst food is rotting or destroyed; it is solely due to the grasping schemes and the financial injustices of man's making that the resources of the planet are not universally available under some wise system of distribution."

In 1981, New Age leader Jeremy Rifkin proposed a new level of wealth redistribution in a book entitled, "Entropy: A New World View". In this book, Rifkin argues that the world is using too many resources to create too many material things.

Even though the New Age believes no energy is ever lost, that it is merely converted from one form of energy into another, Rifkin is proposing that when the energy is used the first time, it is weakened so that its subsequent use is less effective than its original use. Rifkin explains his view. "A human being, a skyscraper, an automobile, and a blade of grass all represent energy …transformed from one state to another...the energy they embody doesn't disappear. It is merely transferred back somewhere else into the environment."

However, Rifkin says that this transferred energy is weakened each time it is transferred, so that, finally, it is "no longer capable of conversion into work...Energy can only be transferred to a dissipated state."

Therefore, Rifkin believes the world is currently producing too many material things that originally use too many resources. If the world is not to soon find itself in a position of running out of usable energy, Rifkin proposes that we must change our lifestyle dramatically. We must move into a State run economy that would regulate the production of all material things so the world will not run out of usable energy.

This lifestyle is called "Low Entropy". This change, says Rifkin, will require a radical "new world view", and he urges draconian measures to achieve this new thinking. He says, "The radical change in world view required to make this transition will have to be accomplished overnight. There will be no time for polite debate, subtle compromise, or monetary equivocation. To succeed will require a zealous determination, a militancy, if you will, of Herculean proportions." (Ibid, p.186, Emphasis added)

"Avatars [World Teachers, like Antichrist will be] frequently create crises in order to bring an end to the old and the undesirable and make way for new and more suitable forms for the evolving life of God Immanent in Nature." [Ibid., p. 8]

"Today, in the midst of this devastated, chaotic, and unhappy world, mankind has a fresh opportunity to reject selfish, materialistic  living and to begin to tread the Lighted Way. The moment that humanity shows its willingness to do this, then the Christ will come ...Before Christ could come with his disciples, our present civilization had to die." ["Reappearance of the Christ", by Foster Bailey, p. 21‐23]

The key statement? They "frequently create crises in order to bring an end to the old and the undesirable".

This is the ultimate goal of the Illuminati as they attempt to use "silent weapons" of which we have no idea even exist in order to gradually destroy our entire way of life, paving the way for an agricultural society like that which existed 300 years ago. This thus leads us to the Club of Rome one of the secret deadly weapons being used to bring about this change.

The Club of Rome is a global think tank that deals with a variety of international political issues. It was founded in April 1968 and raised considerable public attention 1972 with its report Limits to Growth.
The Club is composed of "scientists, economists, businessmen, international high civil servants, heads of state and former heads of state from all five continents who are convinced that the future of humankind is not determined once and for all and that each human being can contribute to the improvement of our societies.

The Club of Rome consists of members of the so‐called Black Nobility of Europe, old families which lived in Venice and Genoa. These people have ruled vast financial empires for the past fifteen hundred years. 'They are called the 'Black' nobility because of their constant use of dirty tricks, terrorism and unethical methods which they never hesitate to use against anyone who would dare to stand in their way. These people are very closely allied to the "German Marshall Fund" which organizes and finances most of the work of the Club of Rome.

As of August 2008, the Club has two Co‐Presidents, Dr. Ashok Khosla of India and Dr. Eberhard von Koerber of Germany, and two Vice‐Presidents, Professor Heitor Gurgulino de Souza of Brazil and Dr. Anders Wijkman of Sweden. Other active members include: Benjamin Bassin, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, Juan Luis Cebrian, Orio Giarini, Talal Halman, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Javier Solana, Mugur Isărescu, Kamal Hossain, Esko Kalimo, Ashok Khosla, Martin Lees, Roberto Peccei, Maria Ramirez Ribes, Victor A. Sadovnichy, Keith Suter, Majid Tehranian, Raoul Weiler, and Mikhail Gorbachev.

In 2000, Prince Hassan of Jordan was chosen to be the head of the Club of Rome. He was appointed "under the patronage of King Juan Carlos and Queen Sofia of Spain" in 2000, replacing another spaniard, Ricardo Diez‐Hochleitner, who remains in a position of leadership with the advocacy think tank organization. Prince Hassan is the member of the House Hashem, an ancient royal family dating back to the early days of Islam's founding.

The Hashemite dynasty is a partner of the Black Nobility ‐ an inner circle of ancient royal families having strong connections with globalists such as Maurice Strong, NGOs such as the Lucis Trust, the Trilateral Commission, etc. The late King Hussein was a Bilderberger Group attendee in the 1990s. The centuries‐long strife between the Shia muslims and the Sunni muslims has been the result of a split between the Hashem clan and the Umayyad clan in the 7th and 8th centuries.

The Hashemite dynasty is simply indifferent to Islam, using its religion as a cover to keep themselves in power and ruling Jordan. This is he reason why the Hashemites were selected by the British and French elite and Zionists in the formation of the new Middle East after World War I.

The Hashemite dynasty also have strong oil connections with the Rockefeller‐owned Standard Oil Trust and the Anglo‐Persian Oil Co. that later became BP, so it is reasonable for the Hashem clan to have the sole controls of the oil pipelines coursing through Jordan to Israel, Turkey, Egypt and beyond.

It was purported that the Club of Rome has devised a secret agenda to transition the globe into an aggregation of ten world regions which will be based on the concept of sustainable development and the same concepts referenced in relation to Prince Charles. That is, provisions will be made to investigate any individual country or sub region in the context of regional global development.

The model has been developed up to the stage where it can be used for policy analysis related to a number of critical issues such as: energy resources utilization and technology assessment; food demand and production; population growth and the affect of timing of birth control programs; reduction of inequities in regional economic developments; depletion dynamics of certain resources, particularly oil reserves; phosphorus use as fertilizer; regional unemployment; constraints on growth due to labor, energy export limitation.

According to the Club of Rome model the world is to be divided into ten regions as illustrated above as is a major premise of the report Regionalized and Adaptive Model of the Global World System. The idea is now coming to life in the United Nations as regions begin to form economic blocks loosely modeled after the European Union. Since the time of this map, Mexico has been added to the North American region (1) as part of the coming creation of the controversial American Union and Israel is supposed to be aligned with region number (4).

The North American Union is a proposed international government encompassing the nations of Canada, the United States, and Mexico. It could be considered the North American analogue of the European Union.

The blueprint for this governing body was laid out in a 2005 report entitled "Building a North American Community" published by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), an Americanforeign policy think tank, with input from the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales. 183 The projected date for accomplishing this transformation is the year 2010. In addition to the European Union and the North American Union; Other regional blocs in the making are:

African Union

• South American Community of Nations

• Arab League

• Eastern European Union

• The Asian Blocs

The Arab League or League of Arab States, is an organization of Arab states. The League's charter states that the League shall co‐ordinate economic affairs, including commercial relations; communications; cultural affairs; nationality, passports, and visas; social affairs; and health affairs. The Charter of the Arab League also forbids member states from resorting to force against each other.
Neil Cooper of the Israel Report states, "In recent years, some have questioned the efficacy of the Arab League's ability to fulfill its mission and ensure better conditions for Arab countries as political repression and poverty are still rampant throughout the Arab world; some, even within the Arab world, have called for it to be disbanded. It is my belief that the entry into Iraq, and the coming confrontation with Iran is to bring the Middle East nations into alignment with the goals of the One World Order. This is why" Democratization" is coming to the Arab nations by force."

The map of the Arab League is very telling:

You will see it is very nearly identical to the map laid out by the Club of Rome shown above.

Interestingly Egypt is very much in the middle of the "Peace" talks with Israel, and as the regional leader of the Arab League, they are the mouthpiece for the One World Order in the Middle East. This is why Mubarak of Egypt, and Olmert (previously Sharon) Abbas, and Abdullah of Jordan, all seem to get along so well at these "Peace" talks as they have a common agenda.

The Arab Peace Initiative which has become better known as The Road Map pushed forward by the Bush Administration was floated by acting Saudi regent Crown Prince Abdullah as a potential solution to both the Israeli‐Palestinian conflict and the Arab‐Israeli conflict. It was published on March 28, 2002, during the meeting of the Arab League at the Beirut Summit, and achieved the unanimous consent of all members of the Arab League.

Considered a progressive proposal, it calls for the state of Israel to withdraw its forces from all the Occupied Territories, including the Golan Heights, to recognize "an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital" in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as well as a "just solution" for the Palestinian refugees. In exchange the Arab states affirmed that they would recognize the state of Israel, consider the Arab‐Israeli conflict over and establish "normal relations" with Israel.

If we look at the policies of the Israeli Government, and the initiatives being pushed on Israel by the International Community as a whole, we see that this is exactly the path that is being taken today, regardless of the outcry from the public. The job that must be completed is to bring the Israelis into compliance with the plan through media, politics, and forced evacuations. The bigger and more difficult task is to bring a Muslim population brainwashed into living only to die; in the common goal of destroying Israel, to a place where they can accept Israel's existence and lay down arms against it. The Koran itself makes this a virtual impossibility, so there must be a tremendous cost extracted from the Islamic people in order to bring this change. That cost is to be extracted through war.

In February 2009, President Moammar Gadhafi of Libya was named chairman of the African Union on Monday, wresting control of a body he helped found and has long wanted to remake in his Pan‐African image. His installation as the new head of the 53‐member body resembled more of a coronation than a democratic transfer of power. Gadhafi was dressed in flowing gold robes and surrounded by traditional African leaders who hailed him as the "king of kings."

The choice of Gadhafi was not a surprise — he was the leading candidate — but the prospect of his election to lead the African Union caused some unease among some of the group's member nations — who were meeting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia — as well as among diplomats and analysts. Gadhafi, who has ruled Libya with an iron hand for decades, is a stark change from the succession of recent leaders from such democratic countries as Tanzania, Ghana and Nigeria.

Gadhafi is an ardent supporter of a long‐held dream of transforming Africa — a collection of postcolonial fragments divided by borders that were drawn arbitrarily by Western powers — into a vast, unified state that could play a powerful role in global affairs. He has repeatedly proposed immediate unity and the establishment of a single currency, army and passport for the entire continent. He pledged Monday to bring up the issue for a vote at the African Union's next summit meeting, in July.

While a few African leaders share his passion and his timetable for this Pan‐African vision, most prefer a go‐slow approach, given the political realities that have emerged in the half‐century since most of Africa became independent.

"In principle, we said the ultimate is the United States of Africa," said Tanzania's president, Jakaya Kikwete, the previous African Union chairman, according to the BBC. "How we proceed to that ultimate — there are building blocks."

Gadhafi's new role comes alongside a changing of the guard in Africa. A set of leaders once hailed as new visionaries or cursed as dictators have left the continent's stage, and a jumbled array of new leaders have emerged. But few match the global or continental influence and heft of those who have departed.

The cerebral Thabo Mbeki, one of the architects of what was supposed to be a club of democratic, corruption‐free African countries, was hounded out of office in South Africa by his own party amid a shower of international criticism of his handling of everything from the AIDS pandemic to the crisis in Zimbabwe.

Olusegun Obasanjo, Nigeria's globe‐trotting military‐ruler‐turned‐democrat and continental power broker, stepped down in 2007 when his two terms were up. His replacement, Umaru Yar'Adua, a sickly and little known former state governor, has struggled to fill Obasanjo's global statesman‐size shoes.

In December, Ghana, a bellwether for the state of democracy and economic progress in Africa, held a successful election in which the party of John Kufuor, a darling of foreign donors that keep the country afloat, was defeated by a two‐time also‐ran from the largest opposition party. And Guinea's longtime strongman, Lansana Conte, the subject of one of Africa's longest deathwatches, died late last year, and a military junta seized power, throwing the country into confusion. Gadhafi has been trying to remake his image, cooperating with the United States and Europe on nuclear weapons, terrorism and immigration issues. How he plans to use the post as chairman of the African Union is unclear.

"The Libyans may want to show some utility in their leadership," he said. "They have got cash they can use. They have an intelligence service they can use. They have got oil. This is a continent that is really hurting right now. I wonder to what degree people looked at this and thought it may be goofy, but maybe something good will come out of this."

Development of the Asia Pacific Union has also begun in earnest. In December 2008, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd suggested that Asia and Pacific countries, including the region's heavyweights such as China, India and Japan, form a regional bloc similar to the European Union.

"The key thing is to enhance security and regional co‐operation, which at present is fragmented," Rudd said in a radio interview in which he also presented the idea during an address to the Asia Society of Australasia.

He argued that an "Asia‐Pacific Community" could be founded by 2020 as a forum for tackling climate change and terrorism, as well as settling territorial conflicts, such as over Kashmir, the Taiwan Straits and the Korean peninsula. Furthermore, it could serve as a trade platform to help exploit the benefits of the looming economic power of the region, which he thinks will be "at the centre of global affairs" throughout this century. He says, "Put simply, global economic and strategic weight is shifting to Asia,"

Commenting on possible comparisons with the 27‐strong European Union ‐ which is set to enlarge further ‐ Mr Rudd said that it does not serve as "an identical model of what we would seek to develop in the Asia‐Pacific, but what we can learn from Europe is this: It is necessary to take the first step," according to Radio Australia.

His suggestions come shortly after a similar process of regional integration has resulted in the creation of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), set up by a founding treaty signed last month.

The new supranational and intergovernmental body has combined two previously existing customs unions – Mercosur and the Andean Community – with 12 participating countries, including Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela, Bolivia, Peru and Chile. Its institutional structure directly copies the EU model, with UNASUR's headquarters to be located in Quito, Ecuador, a South American parliament seated in Cochabamba, Bolivia, and a 'Bank of the South' to be situated in Bogota, Colombia.

Rudd is a long time supporter of global governance. In early 2009 heurged international leaders to end an era of “extreme capitalism” and reject the notion that “greed is good” by embracing a new world order of global financial regulation.

“We’ve seen the triumph of greed over integrity; the triumph of speculation over value creation; the triumph of the short term over long‐term sustainable growth…..It is perhaps time now to admit that we did not learn the full lessons of the greed‐is‐good ideology. And today we are still cleaning up the mess of the21st‐century children of Gordon Gekko.”

Mr Rudd said such ideologues always argued that the market knew best except when there was a crash and then “the self‐same ideologues argue, having privatized their profits, we should socialize their losses ‐ and, by the way, having demanded lower and lower taxes all the way through”


The Western European Union (WEU) is a partially dormant European defense and security organization, established on the basis of the Treaty of Brussels of 1948 with the accession of West Germany and Italy in 1954. 130 The Treaty of Brussels was signed by the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands on 17 March 1948. It was a mutual intergovernmental self defense treaty which also promoted economic, cultural and social collaboration. As a result of the failure of the European Defense Community on 23 October 1954 the WEU was established by the Paris Agreements with the incorporation of the then West Germany and Italy. The signatories of the Paris Agreements clearly stated their three main objectives in the preamble to the modified Brussels Treaty:

To create in Western Europe a firm basis for European economic recovery

• To afford assistance to each other in resisting any policy of aggression

• To promote the unity and encourage the progressive integration of Europe

• The defense efforts resulting from the Brussels Treaty took form as the Western Union Defense


The Brussels Pact had cultural and social clauses, concepts for the setting up of a 'Consultative Council'.

The basis for this was that a cooperation between Western nations would help stop the spread of Communism. The Treaty of Brussels was amended by the Protocol signed in Paris at the conclusion of the London and Paris Conferences on 23 October 1954, which added West Germany and Italy to the Western Union. On this occasion it was renamed the Western European Union.

Originally, under the Amsterdam Treaty, the WEU was given an integral role in giving the EU an independent defense capability, playing a major role in the Petersberg tasks; however that situation is changing. On 13 November 2000, WEU Ministers met in Marseille and agreed to begin transferring the organization’s capabilities and functions to the European Union, under its developing Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP].

Beginning in 2001, the European Union absorbed almost all of the WEU’s functions. However, because the modified Brussels Treaty remains in effect, so does the treaty’s mutual defense clause that gave rise to the 10‐state military alliance. The WEU’s Council exists only as a formality. It hasn’t convened as a body since November 2000, but the same people now sit within the structure of the EU as its Political and Security Committee, where it exercises ‘political control and strategic direction” of EU crisis management operations. The WEU’s arms procurement body has been absorbed into the European Defense Agency, an agency of the EU headed by Javier Solana.

In June 2001, Javier Solana, acting in his role as the WEU’s Secretary General, announced that the WEU Ten had capped the number of permanent members at ten, which some believe is fulfillment of what the prophet Daniel predicted (Daniel 7:24). After all, why continue expanding the WEU when the EU was beginning efforts to replace it internally?

In 2004, on the eve of the draft constitution’s signing, the Dutch tried and failed to get the WEU Ten to terminate the treaty. Other WEU Ten members said no:

The modified Brussels Treaty had to stay in place to maintain the binding commitment of mutual defense, given that such a commitment was not contained in the draft constitution. The following articles show the significant development of a European military power hub.

EUFOR: “a test of credibility for the EU”

Paris, 4 June 2008 – On Wednesday the Assembly said that the deployment of the European Union military force – EUFOR – in Chad and the Central African Republic to protect the refugees fleeing from the Darfur conflict was both “a big step forward and a test of credibility for the ESDP and the EU”…………..Submitting a report on behalf of the Defence Committee, René Rouquet (France, Socialist Group) felt that it was still “too soon to draw any conclusions” on this operation which was the fifth and largest in terms of troop numbers to be conducted by the EU in the ESDP framework. He recalled that 2 380 men had already been deployed at the end of April with a view to reaching an overall strength of 3 700. 14 member states have provided forces on the ground, with the main contributors being France (2 000 troops), Poland (400) and Ireland (400), and 22 countries are represented in the Operation Headquarters in Paris.

According to General Patrick Nash of Ireland, EUFOR Operation Commander at strategic level, this mission “will take place in a complex environment, on hostile military terrain and will be a huge logistical challenge”.

Strategic choices for European security and defence

Paris, 6 May 2008 – France will hold the presidency of the European Union from July to December 2008. At a preparatory meeting on 3 October 2007, Mr François FILLON, Prime Minister of France, told Mr Jean‐Pierre MASSERET, President of the Assembly, that the European security and defence policy (ESDP) was one of France’s main priorities.

Mr MASSERET assured the French Prime Minister that the Assembly supported France in its desire to promote European security and defence. At the Assembly’s plenary session in December 2007, which marked the beginning of the French Presidency of Western European Union (January to December 2008), Mr FILLON paid tribute to the role of the Assembly in spreading a common European security and defence culture. On the eve of the French Presidency of the European Union and at Mr FILLON’s express request, the Assembly, in cooperation with the French National Assembly, held a conference on 5 May in the Palais Bourbon in Paris on the topic of “Strategic choices for European security and defence”. The aim of this conference was to support the incoming French Presidency in its efforts to strengthen the ESDP. Mr Javier SOLANA, EU Secretary General and High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), said he eagerly awaited the outcome of this conference, particularly in view of the work with which the EU Council had entrusted him in the framework of implementing the European Security Strategy, adopted in December 2003.

The Conference was opened by Jean‐Claude MIGNON, Chairman of the French Delegation to the WEU Assembly, and Jean‐Pierre MASSERET, President of the Assembly. Mr MIGNON said that defence was a key area for European progress. He considered that “beneath the blanket term ‘permanent structured cooperation’”, there lay hidden “great opportunities in the area of defence” that would allow a certain number of states that so wished to move forward. Mr MASSERET felt that there were gaps in the European Security Strategy that needed to be filled without delay, in particular by addressing nuclear and space questions. The EU’s political objectives also had to be clarified and the “common general interest” of all EU member states defined. The new provisions in the Lisbon Treaty concerning the ESDP formed a “complex patchwork”, the practical workings of which were yet to be defined.


The empire analys is is far more complex than the lineage analysis because we are faced with asignificant choice as to whether the Club of Rome model is the true representation of the coming global world empire as defined as a ten nation power base in Daniel and Revelation, versus a more conservative perspective (European confederacy of nations school of thought) with deep historical connotations.

As we saw with our analysis of the early Church Fathers, the majority believed that the coming antichrist would be some how connected with the destiny of the Roman Empire and there has been a historical trend to associate a revival of a last days roman empire as being fulfilled with the rise of the European Union, previously known as the European Community. This view was especially strong when this European confederacy was growing to reach ten nations.

However since the freedom of central and eastern Europe from the yoke of communism, the European Union has begun an accelerated growth curve where it is now a political and economic union of member states, located primarily in Europe. It was established by the Treaty of Maastricht in 1993 upon the foundations of the pre‐existing European Economic Community. With almost 500 million citizens, the EU combined generates an estimated 30% share of the world's nominal gross domestic product (US$16.8 trillion in 2007). Fifteen member states have adopted a common currency, the euro. It has developed a role in foreign policy, representing its members in the World Trade Organization, at G8 summits and at the United Nations.

David Breese, a prophetical scholar comments on Europe’s plans to protect her interests.

“Europe will immediately realize the necessity of developing a strong military establishment, an all European army to guard their overflowing coffers……The second mission of a European military establishment must also be to protect the energy routes from the Middle East. A high percentage..nearly 100%...of the oil that heats and energises Europe comes from the oil rich lands of the countries surrounding the Persian Gulf. Should these supplies be threatened, all other considerations would need to be set aside in favor of guaranteeing the uninterrupted flow of Mid East oil. Without this, homes would become cold, automobiles would be parked by the curb, and the airplanes would no longer fly. The pipeline from the Middle East must always be held as a major consideration by the planners of Europe’s future.”

John Phillips in “Exploring The Future” states “There will ultimately emerge a ten‐nation confederation of European powers, a revived Roman Empire as some have called it. Attempts have been made by such men as Charlemagne, Napoleon, and Mussolini to revive the Roman Empire…The European Common Market today foreshadows the impending revival of this empire.”

The great prophetical scholar Dwight Pentecost in his work “Things to Come” regarding the ten toes of Daniels vision states “It would seem best to view this Roman Empire as a continuous development from its form at the time of the first coming of Christ until its form at the second coming of Christ”
Regardless, whether it is the European Union in its present form or the Western European Union or a coming dual membership within the European Union which creates a power base of ten European nations and an outer core of the rest of the European countries, there is a significant political vein running through the bloodline nobility of Europe which is changing the landscape of Europe in a subtle but progressive way into a European Super State and a model of where control is transferred from a national level to a centralized level in accordance with European super state supporter wishes such as Karl Von Habsburg.

Relating this back to Barack Obama Prince Charles and Javier Solana it becomes clear that they are agents of the New World Order, paving the way for the biblical Antichrist to come rather than they themselves being the actual biblical Antichrist.

If the ten nation confederacy prophesied in the Bible in Daniel 2, Daniel 7, Revelation 13 and Revelation 17 is to be fulfilled by a Roman European confederacy led by Antichrist then it is clear that Barack Obama cannot be the Antichrist since it would be objective to believe that this leader would emerge from the Roman boundary of nations as opposed to a leader of the United States becoming leader of a European confederacy. Again this could play into the belief of some that the Antichrist may not necessarily be a Western European leader but a Mediterranean leader. Just as Otto von Habsburg had made mention of a European drive to expand into North Africa and the western side of the Middle East it could be the fact that the coming world leader may come from the byzantine areas of ancient Rome.

Whether Prince Charles could become the leader of a Roman confederacy of nations is open to question as he has never held any form of political role due to his role as a member of the royal family. However it clear that in possibly becoming the head of the Church of England that he would make decisions based on liberal conceptualizing which would have serious ramifications for the Church, the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth. Additionally what if he was to seek a unification with the Roman Catholic Church and undo the reformation process.

However the view which resonates more than any other though is that his fondness for Islam does not bode well for a blood lineage requirement which is stepped in freemasonry and a distorted view of Christ which is largely incompatible with a religion as intolerant as Islam.

The Masonic vision is one where Islam is simply a means to an end in being used to stir up the hostilities within the Middle East so that a devastating war can throw the world into significant turmoil at which point the false messiah appears on the scene. Reading through literature from New World Order proponents it does seem to refer to a war being triggered by a dispute over the temple mount. One does not need to think long in terms of understanding the flashpoint that would be caused over one of Islam’s holiest landmarks.

If the ten nation confederacy prophesied in the Bible in Daniel 2, Daniel 7, Revelation 13 and Revelation 17 is to be fulfilled through the Club of Rome Model then there is more of a chance that Barack Obama could possibly have some influence although again this is only an assumption.

The Club of Rome is less euro‐centric in its focus although much of its conceptual elements are based on the same principles that brought Europe together as a regional confederacy governed by policy makers whose laws transcend national domestic laws. Some believe the Antichrist will rise to power over the European confederacy which will become the dominant power within the Club of Rome Model.

Based on the plans for the Masonic globalists, the Club of Rome Model bears a significant hallmark of the ability to fulfill Revelation 13:7 which describes the Antichrist having control over all mankind.

It is more likely that by becoming president of the United States, that Barack’s Obama foreign policy which will be heavily influenced by Zbigniew Brzezinski which will have some impact on influencing the drive towards a New World Order with America as the Guardian and Obama as another in a long line of shadows of the ultimate man of sin to be eventually revealed at the appointed time.

The intrinsic similarity between the philosophies of the Club of Rome Model and the political concept of Prince Charles sustainable development makes a convincing case for Prince Charles possibly being a future candidate to reign as a president of the Club of Rome if the Club of Rome is the actual fulfillment of the last days global power engine. However as alluded to previously, the Antichrist must be of Jewish origin.

Additionally, Javier Solana’s significant involvement with the unification of Europe and the expansion of its presence in the Middle East cannot be overlooked, especially considering that he is both a Bilderberger and a member of the Club of Rome. However again it is difficult to see how the jews would receive him as a messiah considering his lineage is not of Jewish stock.


In bringing a conclusion to this report on the identity of the Antichrist there is sensitivity that this report has barely touched the surface. The report has sought to present as comprehensive as possible, an outline of the topic from across key aspects within biblical, world and modern history and provides insights into the understanding of the Antichrist system which is being prepared which many are unsuspecting. The unsuspecting has had a major contribution from mainstream bible prophecy literature which is defined as “surface level” research with no true understanding of the sinister aspects of Zionism and its basis on Noahide Laws, the Jewish Talmud and Masonic Lodges and as such provides surface level reasoning and assumptions which are flawed.

It is the conclusion of this report that Barack Obama, Prince Charles of Wales and Javier Solana are not the Antichrist. However the evidence presented, proves without a shadow of a doubt that they are pawns being used by powerful groups to orchestrate the world into a irrevocable descent into the prophesied period of time known in the Bible as the time of “Jacobs Trouble”.

The biblical Antichrist is yet to come and if we diligently search the scriptures to discover what they teach concerning the Antichrist, the more we will be informed about him and the better we shall be prepared to detect the many antichrists that are in the world today, now preparing the way for the ultimate Man of Sin. We ought not to be misled by the many false prophets who are gone out into the world. Nor will we be, if we study diligently those things which God has recorded for our knowledge and to provide protection against the deceptions of the world systems both within and outside of the Christian faith.

Mel Sanger
Author of The Antichrist Identity

1 comment:

  1. I believe Jeremy Rifkin may be a false prophet.