The American media is still fixated on every nuance of the aftermath of the US midterm elections. They will soon be fixated on the lame-duck session of the current Congress in December, after which they will be fixated on the new US Congress in January, etc. In other words, the US media is still ignoring very important events and developments around the world. The Mideast, the Brexit-EU situation, and deteriorating US-Chinese relations could have major impacts on the world you and I live in. This post will focus on the latest war drums being sounded in the South China Sea.

As readers, no doubt realize, China has been attempting to assert sovereignty over the South China Sea, a large body of water that has long been an international waterway. As many as six nations claim control over some portion of that sea. China, however, has built artificial islands in the South China Sea and is militarizing them. China seems poised to seize open control over this vital maritime region through which a large percentage of global maritime shipping flows. Almost the entire remainder of the world does not recognize China’s claims and wants on-going international shipping rights to prevail in these waters. China’s apparent intention and the desires of the rest of the world are not compatible. An armed clash is likely, if not inevitable if China does not back down.

The USA leads the nations that want the South China Sea to remain an international maritime zone. This is not the only bone of contention. China regards Taiwan as a renegade province, and the USA regards it as a nation entitled to self-determination. The USA and China are starting to hurl ultimatums at each other, and this kind of action has often been a prelude to war in past history.

The first link headlines its story by saying “The US tells China to remove missile systems in the South China Sea (emphasis added).” The article reviews China’s militarization of the disputed islands and adds that the “US and its allies have been told by President Xi…to stop sending ships and aircraft near what [China] considers being sovereign territory (emphasis added).” Notice the imperative tense that is being used by both parties. These statements sound like mutually-exclusive ultimatums.

US Vice President Mike Pence flew to Singapore recently and made it a point to have his plane fly close to the disputed islands in the South China Sea as part of an ongoing “freedom of navigation” operation by the USA in those waters. The article in the second link leads its story with an observation that “the US appears to be girding for a fight.” It also reminds readers that China’s President Xi told US President Obama in 2015 that “Beijing would not militarize its then newly-built islands in the South China Sea.” As the entire world now knows, China lied. It has been doing exactly what it said it would not do, but President Obama did nothing throughout his term of office about it. Obama’s pacifism surely emboldened China to pursue a very aggressive policy in the region, but President Trump has adopted a muscular policy in place to ensure that this maritime zone remains international waters.

Things could spin out of control quickly if an incident on sea or in the air results in a combat situation. The third link reports about an incident where China warned a US warship to stay out of the South China Sea. On a recent state visit by the Malaysian president to New Zealand, the Malaysian leader spoke so openly about the dangers of the situation in the South China Sea that New Zealand’s leader had the press removed from the room so they would not hear the kind of blunt conversation that is usually spoken in private between national leaders (fourth link). US Vice-President Pence also warned about a new “Cold War” if China doesn’t make trade concessions (fifth link). The Taiwan Strait is a relatively narrow body of water that separates China and Taiwan. After China conducted a naval exercise in that region, the US Navy responded by sending a cruiser and destroyer through the same region. The final link offers a video of the US warships transiting the Taiwan Strait, accompanied by two vessels I assume to be Taiwanese warships.

The statements and actions of the leaders of the USA and China are beginning to look ever-more like a game of “chicken” where two opponents head straight at each other, seeing if the other will “blink.” I don’t see either party “blinking” yet. The escalation of rhetoric to the point that China and the USA are telling each other what to do is very close to adding an “or else” to the demands made on each other. This kind of language has often lead to a war in world history. This situation needs to be watched very closely. Over the years, I have opined in my posts that China may actually desire a regional war in the South China Sea and that it is engaging in very provocative behavior to start such a war. China has built an array of new weaponry on land, sea, and air, but it has never tested any of its new weapons in actual combat conditions. China may want a regional war to see how well its new weapons perform vs. US warships and warplanes. China would have the advantage of fighting such a war close to its own homeland, but the USA has a variety of allies in the region. China is open about wanting to be the new global superpower, and it has built ballistic and cruise missiles and torpedoes to sink US aircraft carriers. If China’s weaponry fails against US weaponry, China can retreat as gracefully as possible. However, if China succeeds in sinking a US carrier, it may get a much more costly war than it desires. President Trump has characterized himself as a “counter puncher,” meaning he will hit back just as hard as an opponent attacks him. If a US carrier is sunk by China, I expect Trump to exact a very heavy cost from China. In past posts, I have suggested that an American response to the sinking of a US carrier could be the USA raining ballistic missiles, bombs and cruise missiles on China’s Three Gorges Dam until it bursts. This would send a huge fresh-water tsunami all the way through much of Southeast China, doing far more damage to China than China could do to the USA by sinking a carrier. If China attacks US warships, the American military will surely sink all the Chinese ships that it can so long as such a regional war lasted. Logic argues strongly that such a war should be avoided and that the South China Sea needs to remain an international maritime zone for the shipping fleets of all nations.  However, wars begin when logic fails to carry the day.

As long-time readers of my blog know, I view modern geopolitics through the prism of biblical prophecy. The Bible has many prophecies that foretell what will come to pass when the end of our age is reached in a climactic time called “the latter days” or “time of the end.” These prophecies include such specific predictions as (A) that the Jews will again have a homeland in the old Promised Land which will include the coastal Mediterranean region and the city of Ashkelon, (B) that there will be an explosive “knowledge explosion,” (C) that mankind will develop technologies that can end human life on earth and (D) that advanced latter-day technology will be able to collapse a global economy within “one hour.”  All these specific prophecies have come to pass…literally. Given such accurate prophecies in the bible about our time, one would have to be a fool to ignore the remainder of Bible Prophecy which pertains to the time just ahead of us. For documentation of these claims, please read my free articles, Are We Living in the Biblical Latter Days?Four Reasons the Jews are Judah and What Ezekiel 38-39 Reveals about a Future World War III


Find additional info on:



French President Macron has been acting very odd during the commemorations of the end of World War I which were held in Europe recently. He called for a European army and likened the USA as posing as big a threat to Europe as Russia or China. Macron wants a “real European army” and likened “nationalism” to leprosy” (first link). That last comment is clearly an insult to US President Donald Trump, who is a leading nationalist, as well as to various European heads of state who are strong nationalists. Macron’s insistence that the USA is as big a threat to Europe as Russia or China is a huge insult to all Americans and all the nations of the British Empire that saved France in two world wars. The only reason Macron can even serve as the head of state in an independent France is that the USA, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, etc. were willing to lose many lives and spend immense sums of money to rescue France and the rest of Europe from the dominion of the Nazis. Macron seems breathtakingly clueless to the negative impact his bizarre statements would have on many people in many nations.

In the second link and third link, Macron’s Finance Minister echoes Macron’s assertions and even added that “Brussels [i.e. the EU] should be an empire” as the Chinese Empire. Macron has made bizarre statements ever since he came to power in France. Soon after he was elected, he declared that he would reign over France like the god, “Jupiter,” who was “king of the Roman gods” (fourth link). He even summoned the French Parliament to behold his glory as he took on the physical trappings of a Medieval king of France. I think it is clear from these statements that Macron is calling for the EU to be an “empire” in order for Macron to serve as its emperor. Hmm. Macron seems to exhibit at the very least a Messianic Complex for himself. Has he read Matthew 24:3 that prophesies a coming messiah shall be called Emmanuel (or Immanuel)–which is Macron’s first name? That prophecy obviously foretells that Jesus Christ will be the true Messiah, but Matthew 24:24 warns that “false Christs” shall come forth as pretenders in the latter days. Does Macron consider himself a messiah? Daniel 11:35 begins a prophecy pertaining to the end times of our age, and verse 35 foretells that a dangerous “king” [a chief of state in our modern terminology] will appear on the world scene who will “magnify himself above every god.” Hmm. Macron openly declares he is like Jupiter who reigns over all the gods. Macron’s self-glorification comes very close to fulfilling the prophesied attitude of the dangerous “king” in Daniel 11:35. Macron bears watching from a biblical prophetic point of view.

The aforementioned links also detail specifics about Macron’s call for the EU to become an “empire.” France currently is the leader in what is becoming a ten-nation grouping of nations out of which Macron hopes to form his desired European army. The fifth link also warns that Macron’s proposal reveals that there are “deep…rifts” developing between NATO and the EU. The French-led grouping has ten nations now that Finland has joined it. However, it is very likely to drop to nine when the United Kingdom leaves the EU in whatever form its Brexit process takes. A recent post of mine about Europe’s non-NATO military alliances (sixth link) details not only the French-led grouping but several others as well. Many European nations are in either NATO and/or several of these other alliances. I think the only reason Finland is a member of the French-led group instead of NATO is that NATO has real power and Russia had issued dire warnings to Finland if it joined NATO. Russia has issued no such warning to Finland about joining the French-led group because it knows that group currently possesses no real power. I urge readers to review the sixth link as it details some interesting dynamics about what nations naturally are joining together in back-up alliances if NATO dissolves. You will notice that the Scandinavian and Baltic nations tend to be members of any alliance which links them to the USA and the more powerful nations of Europe. There is one grouping headed by the UK, another by Germany and the one led by France. NATO is unquestionably led by the USA. One can foresee a situation where the nations of Europe will need to “choose sides” to align themselves with whatever alliance will give them the most security. Eastern Europe has already chosen to be aligned with the USA. Romani and Poland are hosting American Aegis Ashore air and missile defense systems and Poland has proposed spending $2 billion of its own money to build an American military a base on Polish territory. Soon after he was elected, President Trump was welcomed by the recently-formed Three Seas Initiative group-which is composed almost entirely of former nations who were oppressed by the Russians in the old Soviet Union. What the choice boils down to for many European nations is “Who can protect us from Russia?” Can Germany do it? Obviously not. Can France do it? No. It can barely defend itself. The alliance proposed by France so far exists only “on paper,” and offers no actual security to its proposed members.

Macron wants a globalist “empire” of European nations (under Macron’s royal leadership, no doubt), but his own proposals could help break apart the EU itself. There is a very true statement in Luke 16:13 that no one “can serve two masters.” European nations cannot devote their limited military forces to both the NATO and an alternative EU/French command structure. That is clumsy and simply won’t work in practice. Macron’s proposal for a French-led European army independent of the USA resulted in quick push-back. The seventh link contains the head of NATO warning that European military forces should stay in the NATO command structure. A retired American general panned Macron’s proposal as well (eighth link). President Trump reacted swiftly and very critically to Macron’s proposals to abandon US leadership of Europe’s defense (ninth link). The ninth link also draws attention to a huge problem for Macron. He is immensely unpopular in his own nation and his poll numbers are among the lowest of any current head-of-state. Macron likely could not win an election in his own nation at present. Also, Hungary’s President Orban was dismissive of Macron’s proposals (tenth link). Orban is a leader in the bloc of European nations who are led by nationalist/populists, and they are likely to recoil from Macron’s call for any European “empire” led by Brussels (the EU Bureaucrats). Any such Brussels-led empire would mean that all the other nations of Europe would lose their national sovereignties and would be reduced to mere provinces of this new “empire.” That is a very unpopular message in modern Europe. It seems that Macron would like to lead Europe, but Europe does not want to follow him.

At the very least, the imperial pretensions of Macron and his Brussels-based EU allies are now out in the open for all to see. It will be very interesting to watch how all this unfolds in the future. Whatever happens, will almost surely have biblical prophetic implications. For in-depth, biblically-based, prophetic perspectives on modern geopolitics, please read my free articles, Are We Living in the Biblical Latter Days?, Is Babylon the Great about to Fall…Ushering in a New Beast System? and The USA in Biblical Prophecy.



See more information on: Steven M. Collins Author Blog


The US government has announced that its military has successfully tested a new air defense missile which can shoot down medium-range ballistic missiles. A US naval missile launched from a US destroyer launched the interceptor missile which was able to impact the target ballistic missile and destroy it (first and second links). This successful test was very important as there have been previous tests failures as this new weapons system is being readied for deployment. This new missile is designed to work as part of the US Navy’s Aegis air defense system, and it can be fired both from naval warships and from any Aegis Ashore battery. It has been jointly developed by Raytheon, a US defense company and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, its Japanese partner. Expect Japan to benefit from this new program as well.

This is a very important development for many reasons. As readers no doubt know, North Korea has been dragging its feet about implementing the agreement North Korea’s leader signed with US President Trump in Singapore earlier this year to “denuclearize the Korean Peninsula.” The testing of this new US missile at this time may not be coincidental, for at least three reasons. The first reason is that North Korea has a number of ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads. If both Japan and the USA are in the process of deploying a ballistic missile interceptor program, it limits the usefulness of North Korea’s ballistic missiles as it is increasingly evident that North Korean ballistic missiles fired from its territory could be shot down during their boost phase by either the US or Japanese military forces located in the vicinity of the Korean Peninsula. Hopefully, this will help motivate North Korea to actually implement a program to destroy its nuclear weapons.

Secondly, it also sends a message to China. China aggressively militarized artificial islands in the South China Sea while the Obama administration looked the other way and did nothing. China has openly declared that it has developed ballistic missiles which can be fired at US carrier task forces as well as at fixed targets like the US military base at Guam. Of course, everything in the Japanese Home Islands would be within the range of this medium-range Chinese ballistic missile. That the US and Japan are nearing the deployment of this new interceptor missile in the Aegis air defense system means that there will be a credible deterrent to the new Chinese missile in both the US and Japanese arsenals. Both Japan and the USA have Aegis-equipped warships in the Western Pacific Rim region that can fire these new missiles, and Japan is building an Aegis Ashore missile installation on its soil which can also fire these new missiles at any incoming North Korean or Chinese ballistic missile.

There is a third reason why this development is important. Russia has the ability to fire ballistic missiles at Europe from either its homeland or from its Kaliningrad enclave north of Poland. As I documented in a previous post, Romania already has an operational Aegis Ashore facility located on its soil, and Poland is in the process of bringing another Aegis Ashore facility to completion on Polish territory. The one in Poland could counter any Russian ballistic (or cruise) missiles fired from Kaliningrad at any NATO target. Russia also will surely realize that this new ballistic missile interceptor can be used against incoming Russian ballistic missiles fired from the US Aegis Ashore facilities in either Romania or Poland. Substantially negating a North Korean, Chinese or Russian ballistic missile capability is most useful in helping to deter any war from being started.

The USA also has interceptor missiles to destroy incoming ICBMs fired at the American homeland, but not nearly enough of them have been deployed to counter an all-out attack by enemy ICBMs (third link). Allow me to suggest two alternative missile defense programs which may exist within the US military vs. ICBMs fired at the USA. Over 30 year ago during the Cold War, the USA had developed a system to fire missiles form high-flying warplanes to shoot down satellites in space (fourth and fifth links), If the USA had the capacity to shoot down orbital satellites from US warplanes in the mid-1980s, how much further do you suppose this program has developed over the last three decades? I seriously doubt the Pentagon or DARPA forgot all about this space defense capability. Since ICBMs (of any range) have to go into space during the high point of their trajectory, modern warplanes equipped with missiles far more advanced than the 1980s anti-satellite missiles could have the capacity to shoot down incoming ballistic missiles as well. There is one more possibility, although it may sound like science fiction. There is a surfeit of cable-TV documentaries and programs that assert that there are UFOs which can “fly” through the atmosphere at incredible speeds and perform almost right-angle turns. Many such UFOs have been seen by very credible witnesses (airline pilots, military and law enforcement personnel, etc.). It is my opinion that the US Defense Department and DARPA have developed aerial vehicles which do not use traditional wings or methods of propulsion. Some UFOs make right-angle, high-speed course corrections that would normally kill a human being. Let us consider a possible alternative to “space alien” explanations for UFOs. Such radical course and speed maneuvers could be performed if no human beings were on those aerial vehicles. If they were remotely-pivoted or if they were “crewed” by Artificial-Intelligence devices, then they could conduct the observed radical maneuvers they make without endangering any human beings. If the US Defense Department/DARPA has developed and deployed such aerial vehicles, who knows what offensive and defensive weaponry they may be able to deploy? An enemy might not know about their capabilities until the USA is actually attacked.

The prophecy in Revelation 13:1-5 discusses the unveiling of a yet-future “beast” system which will dominate the world for 42 months before it is, itself, destroyed by the Second Coming of Jesus Christ who will set up a millennial utopia ruled by himself and his resurrected saints who will then be transformed into spirit beings who will as subordinates to Jesus Christ in his kingdom (Revelation 19:11-20:5). Addressing the time when this prophesied beast system will be unveiled to the world, Revelation 13:4 foretells that the nations will marvel at what they see and say “Who is able to make war with him?” To make such a statement, it is obvious that this future world system will unveil previously-unknown weaponry that will militarily intimidate the nations. I believe such secret weapons systems already exist, and that they are simply awaiting the right time to be revealed in the future.

For an in-depth examination of how biblical prophecies about the latter days have accurately foretold the circumstances of our modern world, please read my articles, Are We Living in the Biblical Latter Days?, Japan in Prophecy? The USA in Biblical Prophecy, and What Ezekiel 38-39 Reveals about a Future World War III.

Find additional info on: Steven M. Collins


Recently, I have blogged on a variety of European and Asian geopolitical topics. This blog will offer my observations on the impact the American mid-term elections will have on the USA going into the future. International readers of my blogs may especially appreciate an American perspective on our tumultuous American political situation. I think our American politics may look very confusing to people in other nations (Why not? They look confusing enough to those of us who live here!). First, let’s review the actual results.

There was no “Blue Wave ” as hoped for by the Democrats. While some races have not yet been decided, it looks like the Democrats will control the next US House of Representatives with approximately 230 seats to the Republicans’ 205 seats (a, gain in seats, for the Democrats of approximately 36 seats).  The Republicans actually gained 3 seats in the US Senate (if current tallying trends hold) and look to control that body by a margin of perhaps 54-46. There will still be a run-off election in Mississippi for a Senate seat, but that state is heavily pro-Trump so the incumbent Republican senator should be re-elected easily. Democrats gained several governorships and made gains in state legislative bodies, but both these categories are still dominated by Republicans. President Trump has good reason to be pleased with the outcome. The first link documents that, historically, mid-term elections invariably are almost always a loss for the party of an incumbent president. Sometimes these losses can be huge. The Republican losses in the House are within the range of the historical norms. However, the Republican gain in the Senate in a mid-term election was a rare event. As the first link shows, this has happened only three times in mid-term elections in the last century. It appears that a Trump nemesis, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, will be Speaker of the House, but that is not yet certain. Some Democrats (and their media allies) are already calling for endless investigations of the president. Trump has already tweeted that if they do that, “two can play at that game.”

If the Democrats attack the White House with investigations, the Republican Senate can launch equally intense investigations into Hillary Clinton’s lawless use of a private server with unprotected classified documents on them (this would draw in many high Obama officials as targets), the Uranium One scandal wherein the Obama administration’s high officials signed off on selling a large percentage of American uranium production to Russia, etc.  Such reciprocal investigations could be very poisonous for our nation. However, in what I see as a Trump preparation for an investigations war, he “fired” Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who was a weakened official ever since he suddenly recused himself from all the special prosecutor issues once he took office. The new Attorney General will surely be a pro-Trump official who will take firm control of the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the Special Prosecutor’s office.  Democrats should take heed to what happened in the aftermath of the recent Hearings on Judge Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Supreme Court. The “witch-hunt” like the atmosphere of those Hearings galvanized Republicans and it likely led to the loss of several key Democratic Senate seats. The Democrats lost seats in Indiana, Missouri, North Dakota, and Florida they may have won if the Democrat incumbents had voted to approve his nomination. Only one Democrat in the Senate voted to confirm Kavanaugh, and he won his re-election bid in a very pro-Trump state (West Virginia). If the Democrats launch more “witch hunt” investigations, they may reap a very bad harvest of ill-will from the American voters. If vindictive House investigations become the new norm, you can be sure Senate Republicans will also launch hearings into illegal and rigged voting by Democrats. The second, third and fourth links offer fertile ground for the beginnings for such hearings.

President Trump may secretly not be unhappy that the Democrats took the House. With shared power comes shared responsibility. Since the Democrats and Republicans now each hold one wing of the Congress, both are now equally responsible for ensuring the nation status quo is a good one as they both will have to run on the record of the next two years in the 2020 elections. If there is a crisis or collapse of some kind in the next two years, Democrats could have put all the blame on the Republicans if the Republicans had controlled the entire Congress and White House. Now that the Democrats control one house of Congress, that issue is not available to them. If gridlock results, Trump is actually placed in a good position. He is really only responsible for bills once they reach his desk for either his signature or his veto. If Congress can’t pass bills, Trump can, credibly, blame Congress. He could also increasingly govern by Trumpian-scale Executive Orders if Congress is paralyzed. There is a possibility that Trump may declare a state of emergency on the nations’ southern border due to drug trafficking and illegal immigration, and militarize the border.

Importantly, the US Senate will be far more pro-Trump. Anti-Trump Republican senators were removed in Arizona and Tennessee and replaced with pro-Trump Republicans (although the Arizona election is still not finalized). Anti-Trump Democrats were replaced by pro-Trump Republicans in North Dakota, Missouri, Indiana, and Florida. Since the US Senate approves all federal judges and cabinet appointments, Trump’s appointees will have a much easier time of it during the next two years. Coincidentally, just days after the election, Judge Ginsburg, the oldest member of the Supreme Court’s liberal wing, had a severe enough fall to break several ribs (fifth link). She is 85 years old, and there has been speculation regarding how much longer she will be able to serve on the court.  If she cannot serve, Trump will have another Supreme Court nomination to make, and the new Senate will be much more likely to easily confirm a conservative constitutionalist appointee.

Another aspect of this election worth noting is the continued bad performance of pre-election polls in close races. In the polling reports, the Republicans did much better than predicted by the polls in, for example, Senate races in Indiana, Missouri, Florida and a governor’s race in Ohio. On election night, I watched Fox News, CBS, and CNN for election returns. One analyst (I forget who) commented that many Americans no longer share their views with any pollster, but election results have confirmed that those not speaking with pollsters are mostly Republican or pro-Trump voters. This means that Republicans may often be doing several points better in future close races than the polls indicate.

Those living in other nations with parliamentary governments actually have two advantages over we Americans. In America, campaigning for the next election begins, unfortunately, the day after each election ends. Our campaign cycle never truly ends in America. In parliamentary nations, there is usually a 60 or 90-day election cycle if snap or special federal elections are called. I envy my international readers in that they actually get breaks from political campaigns. We Americans never really get such a break, and the American media obsesses about every nuance of American politics to the exclusion of important foreign events (as some of my blogs have noted). The second is that in America we have two dominant political parties that control our electoral system like two binary stars orbiting each other endlessly in opposing paths. Parliamentary elections often have many parties which must come together to form a governing coalition after an election. That can also result in gridlock, but at least the candidates do group together in changeable blocs. In the USA, the Democrats could easily subdivide into a Green, a Socialist and a Labor party. The Republicans could easily subdivide into a Capitalist and a Christian Religious party. The two-party system that controls America is not required by our Constitution. Indeed, I don’t think our Founding Fathers even visualized the formation of political parties. However, the two-party system is now so entrenched in American politics that it would take a huge upheaval to alter it.

The election results will have minimal effect on US foreign policy. The US will stay firmly pro-Israeli in Mideast politics, and, if anything, Trump will have an even stronger hand in conducting foreign policy everywhere. The reason is that all treaties with other nations have to be considered and approved by the Republican Senate. The Democratic House has no role in treaty consideration or approvals.

It should be an interesting two years as we begin the political cycle for the next federal election! I hope that these comments are beneficial to international readers and to American readers as well.

Read additional information on:


A recent blog examined the very bad news received by each party in Angela Merkel’s governing coalition in Germany after the Bavarian state election. Merkel’s CDU/CSU alliance lost a large percentage of its usual voter share to the surging AfD party on the rightist spectrum of German politics. The leftist SPD party in the coalition lost many votes to the surging Green party. Observers saw this, rightly, as a rejection of Angela Merkel’s policies and her governing coalition. The next state election was in Hesse on October 28th. Hesse is home to the German financial center of Frankfurt, and another dismal showing by Merkel’s coalition partners in that election was expected to trigger a governing crisis in Germany. The first link discussed the chances of Merkel’s ability to remain as Chancellor if the Hessian election went badly for her.

The elections in Hesse could hardly have been a worse result for Merkel. Her coalition parties lost a very large percentage of their vote share in the previous Hesse election. Merkel’s CDU dropped from 38.3% to 27.2% and her SPD partner went from 30.7% to just 19.6%. Combining these totals reveals that Merkel’s governing coalition plummeted from 69% to 46.8%. The Green party tied the SPD for second place and the rightist AfD gained 12.8% of the vote, guaranteeing them a significant place in Hesse’s’ parliament. The impact of the result was immediate. The head of the SPD party declared “The state of the government is unacceptable” (second link). If the SPD leaves the governing coalition, Merkel’s reign is over and new German elections will be needed.

In the wake of the crushing defeat for Merkel’s coalition in both Bavaria and Hesse, it is evident that these elections were a referendum on Merkel’s policies of admitting huge numbers of Muslim and African migrants, her pro-EU policies, weak national defense and her non-defense of traditional German culture as Islamic immigrants were seen as trying to impose Islamic culture on swaths of Germany. Merkel’s CDU party has an intra-party election in December to determine its party leader. Merkel has served as both the CDU party leader and the federal Chancellor. If Merkel had lost a bid to continue as CDU leader, she would almost surely have been squeezed out of the Chancellor position as well in a no-confidence vote in Parliament. In a clever move, she opted to voluntarily resign as party leader and announce that she would not seek another term as Chancellor when her term expires in a few years. This move was designed, I’m sure, by Merkel to prolong her grip on power as the Chancellor of Germany. However, many do not believe that she will be able to continue as Germany’s leader for much longer. The third, fourth and fifth links offer American, German and British media perspectives on Merkel’s actions and her weakening grip on power.

The upcoming CDU party election will reveal much about the future of the CDU as well as Merkel’s own future. Merkel has groomed a successor, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, who Merkel hopes will be elected at the CDU convention. However, she will be opposed by two Merkel rivals– the current Health minister, Jens Spahn, and a former party rival named Friedrich Merz. Mr. Merz has been absent from CDU party politics for years, but he is now emerging to be a leading contender to replace Merkel as party leader (sixth link). Several outcomes are possible. If Merkel’s preferred successor is elected, Merkel is likely to stay on as Chancellor, albeit in a weakened status as a “lame duck.” If one of her rivals take over as CDU leader, Merkel is likely to be forced out of her federal position as well. Merkel’s governing coalition of the CDU, CSU and SPD is steadily losing voter support. If the CDU went into new elections with a Merkel rival as their candidate, the CDU may actually increase its share of the vote as Merkel’s unpopularity would no longe be a drag on their party. It must be stressed that the governing coalition’s future is not going to be determined solely at the pending CDU party convention. The head of the SPD party, Andrea Nahles, is under growing pressure within her party to leave the governing coalition as the SPD party base is abandoning it in greater numbers the longer it stays in coalition with Merkel’s party. In the last German federal election, the SPD leader, Martin Schulz, had promised that he would not enter any coalition with Merkel’s party. After the election, the SPD did exactly what its leadership had promised it would not do–it joined Merkel’s coalition. Mr. Schulz was forced out after this occurred, and a major part of the SPD base was offended. For American readers, this was similar to President George Bush Sr. running for office on a clear “Read my Lips, No New Taxes!” promise. After he was elected, Bush raised taxes anyway, and plummeted in the eyes of the American public. The SPD is suffering the same fate as President George Bush Sr., and will likely continue to lose its voters as long as it stays in a governing coalition with the CDU/CSU.

Underlying all the political struggles is the fact that Angela Merkel’s Germany has been a powerful force for globalism in Europe and the world. Nationalists have been replacing globalists in one nation after another so the globalists can ill afford to lose Merkel. They are trying to keep her in what is now essentially a caretaker role as Chancellor for as long as they can; however, there is a sign that they realize Merkel’s days as Chancellor are limited. The final link expresses a globalist effort to put a positive “spin” on Merkel’s exit from power. This opinion piece signals to me that they are already starting the transitional steps to replace Merkel with what they hope will be her globalist protege. However, it is hard to predict what will happen in the next German election. With new leaders at their head, will the CDU and SPD may regain their usual voter shares or their decline may continue. The Green party has been surging in recent elections and the AfD is becoming a significant fore as well. Germany’s electorate has been fragmenting its vote shares among more parties, and it may be very difficult to form a government among the competing parties after a future election.

Time will tell, but it now seems apparent that early German elections will be necessary at some point. Even if Merkel’s preferred successor heads a new government, that successor will not have the gravitas, global relationships or power that Merkel has wielded. The forces for globalism are being weakened in Germany at a time when globalists are being voted out of power all over the world (Hungary, Poland, Austria, Italy, Brazil, the USA, etc.). Even globalist nations like Germany and Sweden have had their governments thrown into a state of continuing crisis. Nationalists are gaining strength at an increasing rate. This competition between the world’s globalist and nationalist blocs is becoming more intense and it is likely to get ugly. The Brexit negotiations between the United Kingdom and the EU are stymied at present. Nationalists want a hard Brexit, but Prime Minister Theresa May (who wanted to stay in the EU) seems to be trying to obtain as “soft” a Brexit as possible. The outcome of this process is not yet known.

This struggle between the globalist bloc and the nationalist bloc was prophesied in the book of Revelation to occur in the latter days of our age. In Revelation 17-18, the globalists are identified as the entrenched governmental and private sector leaders who are enriching themselves in an insider cabal at the expense of everyone else (Revelation 18:2-3). The nationalist bloc is identified in this prophecy as a cryptic alliance of “seven heads and ten horns” that will overthrow the globalist bloc which is called Babylon the Great (Revelation 17:9-18). This biblical prophecy foretells that the nationalists will win this struggle, but it does not specify how long the struggle will last or in what year the final outcome will be evident. Germany has been a major force for the globalist camp, and its current internal leadership crisis bodes ill for the globalists in the EU and the world. There will be much to watch as this struggle continues to unfold. For in-depth information about how biblical prophecies are being fulfilled in modern events, please read my articles, Are We Living in the Biblical Latter Days?, Is Babylon the Great About to Fall…Ushering in a New Beast System? and The Babylonian Origin of the Modern Banking System. If you read these articles, you will gain insights into how the Bible reveals a Divine “script” for the nations which is being acted out in our time.

Find more info on: Steven M. Collins


A number of recent posts have commented on the nationalist vs globalist struggles that are taking place around the world. The nationalists have been winning one national election after another, flipping previously-globalist nations to the nationalist camp. The USA, Italy, Poland, Austria, and Hungary have gone nationalist in state elections. India, Russia, China, Israel, and Egypt were already strongly nationalist in their governments. Sweden’s recent election overthrew a globalist government, but it still has not formed a new government. The nationalists greatly increased their strength in Sweden, but not enough to form a government. We can now add another major nation which has switched from the globalist to the nationalist camp: Brazil.

Brazil has been ruled by leftist/socialist, globalist governments for decades. Under those governments, chiefs-of-state were impeached or jailed and corruption became widespread in Brazil. The economy had tanked and gang violence and crime mushroomed. Brazil’s murder rate was reportedly up to 64,000 per year in one media report I read. In the final round of the election which was just held, a right-wing nationalist named, Jair Bolsonaro, was just elected president of Brazil by a very decisive margin. His critics in the media and on the left portrayed him as a candidate who was far too rightist to be elected, but the Brazilian voters elected him anyway. The first four links offer various international perspectives on Mr. Bolsonaro’s crushing win and what it means for Brazil’s future. Mr. Bolsonaro surely won respect from the voters when he was attacked and stabbed in the abdomen in an assassination attempt during the campaign, but he lived to continue running for Brazil’s presidency.

I had hoped to add links to two excellent Wall Street Journal (WSJ) articles in this post, but they are available electronically only to subscribers. However, I bought a copy of the October 29th WSJ at a newsstand and will offer some quotes from them for reader’s benefit. One, entitled “Ex-Captain Wins Presidency, Sending Brazil to the right” stated that Bolsonaro’s victory was “mirroring both the rise of anti-establishment politics and populist nationalism around the world,” and that his rise “stunned pundits and rivals…” This article adds that Mr. Bolsonaro’s solution to the out-of-control crime problem will be to give “carte-blanche” authority to law enforcement officers “to kill suspected criminals and arm civilians for self-defense.” Mr. Bolsonaro’s pro-traditional values, pro-gun, anti-gay, pro-property rights campaign also attracted great support from the Brazilian evangelical Christian voters (which the article asserts are now 1/3rd of Brazil’s voters). A columnist, Mary Anastasia O’Grady, wrote in the same WSJ issue that Mr. Bolsonaro’s political and media opponents labeled him “a racist, a misogynist, a homophobe, a fascist, an advocate of torture and an aspiring dictator.” She also wrote that a corruption investigation in Brazil “revealed a callous political and business elite that teamed up to enrich themselves.” That language seems torn right from the prophecy in Revelation 18:3 that in the end-times of our age, a cabal of political and business leaders (“kings of the earth” and “merchants of the earth”) will “wax rich” by being insiders in a global insider elite called “Babylon the Great.” In the USA, this insider network of self-serving globalists is called “the Deep State” or “the swamp.” Ms. O’Grady’s columns also asserted that Brazil’s socialist insiders had been supporting the dictatorships in Cuba and Venezuela.

Many long-time readers of this blog will see the continuation of a familiar theme being acted out on the geopolitical stage of world events. Revelation 17-18 prophesies that a cabal of corrupt, self-indulgent global elites called “Babylon the Great” will be overthrown at the end of our age by a cryptic alliance called “the seven heads and ten horns” (Revelation 13:1-5, 17:9-18). This cryptic alliance of “seven heads and ten horns” will install a new global system that biblical prophecy calls “the beast” system. This beast system will hold sway over the world for a mere 42 months (Revelation 13:5) before it is itself overthrown by the return of Jesus Christ and his heavenly army (Revelation 19:11-20:4) who will establish a millennial utopian rule on earth. When the current “Babylon the Great” global system collapses, we can begin the 42-month countdown to the return of Jesus Christ as soon as its successor “beast” system is installed.

Mr. Bolsonaro’s smashing victory is good news for those who are trying to overthrow the power of the entrenched global elites. The world’s nationalist parties are beginning to win a string of major victories and the globalists are losing more nations who were once dominated by them. Based on what I’ve read, Mr. Bolsonaro will likely get along well with President Trump and the USA as Brazil joins Chile, Argentina, Paraguay and Colombia in the growing list of Latin American nations which have turned to conservative/nationalist governments.  

There is no doubt where President Trump stands in this competition between the globalists and nationalists. In the final link, President Trump rejects the globalists in a video clip of one of his rallies, and declares flatly that he is a “nationalist.” As the nationalists gain strength globally, I regard this trend as evidence that we are, indeed, nearing the fulfillment of major biblical prophecies and that the ultimate fall of “Babylon the Great’s” globalist insider system is drawing steadily nearer. Biblical prophecy is being fulfilled in remarkable precision in modern events, but the world–which is almost totally ignorant of the Bible’s content–does not see it happening.

For an in-depth examination of the above biblical prophecies and how they are being fulfilled in modern geopolitical events, please read my free articles, Are We Living in the Biblical Latter Days?, Is Babylon the Great about to Fall, Ushering in a New Beast System? and The Babylonian Origin of the Modern Banking System.




Find more info on:

Author – "The Lost Tribes of Israel"