The Bible tells us that a time will come when commerce—the act of buying and selling—can be controlled worldwide. This facility will actually be invoked at one point during the Great Tribulation period, “He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name” (Revelation 13:16-17).

This is an oft-referenced verse, infamously misquoted and misinterpreted by Christians and unbelievers alike. It is the source of countless vain speculations about the identity of the “mark” and the “number.” However, the most critical error concerns the identity of who it is that actually brings in these controls. It is not the first beast with 7 heads, which is of the lineage that gives rise to the physical Antichrist. Rather it is the second beast (which emerges from earth and has two horns like a lamb) that brings in these commercial controls. This latter beast is commonly linked with the False Prophet, who is mentioned in Revelation 16:13.

I have always thought it a telling alert that it will be a religious figure that ends up being the world’s last “economic guru.” A strange coincidence? No. Seen together, macroeconomics and globalization today are the world’s largest religion. The beliefs imbedded in these bosom ideologies are the prevailing hope of humanity today. As such, it is only fitting that a deceiving religious figure would preach such a final Prosperity Gospel to the entire world. Indeed, the value proposition of the False Prophet at that time may sound like this: “Take the number that is religiously endorsed from this preacher’s pulpit and you will have prosperity.”  At that time there will be such a crisis, that people will likely respond as they did to Joseph in the third year of the famine: “[…] Buy us and our land in exchange for food, and we with our land will be in bondage to Pharaoh” (Genesis 47:19).

However, the intent of this article is to show just how ripe the world already has become, having prepared the very control systems that will be given over to the False Prophet and the evil purposes of the Antichrist.

Why Global Systems Are Needed

Money—assuredly one significant factor that makes humans different from animals—is the designated medium of Mammon. Its strategic significance in the cosmology of mankind is more than it just being the chief temptation that qualifies “the love of money” as being “the root of all kinds of evil” (1 Timothy 6:10). Crucially, “money systems” also play a strategic eschatological role as can no other form of earthly or spiritual rule. Why is this the case? There could be a number of reasons. But, very likely the main one is that Satan and his hierarchy of fallen angels do not have the power of omnipresence as does God.  Therefore, an inventive tactic is needed.  Here, a global commercial system offers the next most potent perch to omnipresence. There is no other medium more conducive to world control.

Moreover, as Satan’s power has been limited during the Church Age, an indirect means of control is required. Revelation 17:8 tells us, “The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and will come up out of the Abyss and go to his destruction.” We seen here that “The Beast”—namely, Satan himself—has been detained in the Abyss until that point when he will again be released. Apostle John here confirms what Jesus said, that “[…] the prince of this world now stands condemned” (John 16:11). “[…] Having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross” (Colossians 2:15).

Though Satan’s powers may have been curtailed during the Church Age, the spirit of the Antichrist has been busy. “For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way” (2 Thessalonians 2:7). Many antichrists have been at work, inevitably coaxing the world to its globalized, humanist state. Its endpoint is already nearly here. The supporting technologies … the organizational structure is nearly complete … and the concentration of financial command nodes far advanced. Only one thing remains: The imperative to pull it all together … the imperative of policy.  We will return to this point in our conclusions.

Concentration of Financial Control

Below are outlined a few trends which will provide the reader with some anecdotal evidence of how rapidly financial systems are converging and centralizing. We could cite countless more examples; however, here we only point to four of its telltale signs.

1. Concentrated Owners. For the U.S., consider that latest available year-end 2006 data shows total institutional investors—defined as pension funds, investment companies, insurance companies, banks and foundations—controlled assets totalling $27.1 trillion, up from $24.4 trillion in 2005. This level represents a ten-fold increase from $2.7 trillion in 1980. The equity market value of total institutional equity holdings increased from $571.2 billion in 1980 (or 37.2% of total U.S. equity markets) to $12.9 trillion (or 66.3% of total U.S. equity markets) in 2006. This represents a historic all-time high in the amount of total U.S. equities controlled by these institutional investors (Source: Conference Board).

2. More Evidence of Concentrated Holdings. A pair of physicists at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich recently published preliminary findings of their network analysis of the world financial economy as it looked in early 2007. Stefano Battiston and James Glattfelder extracted the information for 24,877 stocks and 106,141 shareholding entities in 48 countries. It revealed what they called the “backbone” of each country’s financial market. These backbones represented the owners of 80% of a country’s market capital, yet consisted of a remarkably small number of shareholders. The most pared-down backbones exist in Anglo-Saxon countries, including the U.S., Australia, and the U.K. Paradoxically, these same countries are considered by economists to have the most widely held stocks in the world, with ownership of companies tending to be spread out among many investors. But while each American company may link to many owners, Glattfelder and Battiston’s analysis found that the owners varied little from stock to stock, meaning that comparatively few hands are holding the reins of the entire market.[1]

3. Financial Institutions Become More Concentrated. Perversely, financial institutions continue to become larger, despite the clear “moral hazards” of “too big to fail.” Quoting an article on this topic: “Survivors … emerge[d] from the turmoil with strengthened market positions, giving them even greater control over consumer lending and more potential to profit. J.P. Morgan Chase, an amalgam of some of Wall Street’s most storied institutions, now holds more than $1 of every $10 on deposit in this country. So does Bank of America, scarred by its acquisition of Merrill Lynch and partly government-owned as a result of the crisis, as does Wells Fargo, the biggest West Coast bank. Those three banks, plus government-rescued and -owned Citigroup, now issue one of every two mortgages and about two of every three credit cards, federal data show.”[2]

4. Global Wealth Skew. In December 2006, a groundbreaking report entitled The World Distribution of Household Wealth (World Institute for Development Economics Research, UN University—UNU-Wider) was released. The results were much more pronounced than had been previously indicated by other studies that surveyed income. Wealth and income, though surely related, are quite different. Income is generally defined as the annual flow of earnings and incomes, while wealth is the accumulation of income and hoarded assets. According to its authors’ research, the top 10% of adults in the world own 85% percent of global household wealth (2005). The average member of this wealthy group therefore has 8.5 times the holdings of the global average. Furthermore, the top 2% and 1% of the world’s population is estimated to own 51% and 40% of world household wealth, respectively. This is a more extreme distribution than had been estimated by surveying global incomes in previous studies.

Everywhere one peers, the forces of centralization can be identified, whether in North America or globally. Today, perhaps less than 10,000 people control the world’s money flows. Some have estimated a far smaller number … as low as 600. The signs of centralization are everywhere. Quoting a Club of Rome member, David Korten:

While the giants are shedding people, they are not shedding control over money, markets, or technology. The world’s 200 largest industrial corporations, which employ only one third of one percent of the world’s population, control 25 percent of the world’s economic output. The top 300 transnationals, excluding financial institutions, own some 25 percent of the world’s productive assets. Of the world’s 100 largest economies, 51 are now corporations—not including banking and financial institutions. The combined assets of the world’s 50 largest commercial banks and diversified financial companies amount to nearly 60 percent of The Economist’s estimate of a $20 trillion global stock of productive capital.[3]

Global Systems Affect Cares of Entire World

As the global market gyrations of the recent Global Financial Crisis (GFC) attest, never before in history has global opinion been galvanized by financial events so quickly. This is remarkable. Never before has the entire financial world behaved so much as one monolithic culture, as is now evident in global capital markets. This is a direct, though not exclusive, result of the late stage globalized commercial systems.

Robert Shiller, in a commentary in the New York Times, provides an insightful perspective:

It is a large and diverse world, after all, so why should confidence have rebounded so quickly in so many places? The popularity of the term ‘green shoots’ shows the kind of social epidemic underlying our changing thinking. The phrase was propelled in Britain by Shriti Vadera, the business minister, in January, and mutated into a more contagious form after Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, used it on 60 Minutes on March 15. The news media didn’t need to change the term for different cultures around the world. With nothing more than a quick translation—brotes verdes, pousses vertes, grüne Sprösslinge, etc.—it is now recognized as a symbol of a revival coming soon. All of this suggests that a social epidemic is supporting renewed confidence. This confidence can keep growing by contagion, as a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy, and we may see the markets and the economy recover further. But in an economy that is still unstable, the stories could also morph into different forms, the price feedback could turn downward and the dynamic could turn ugly again—just as it has in the past.[4]

Putting it all together, we crucially now recognize that the economic, financial and psychological conditions of global markets have come to the point where a viral media-generated chain can impact the sentiment of the entire world rapidly. Both globally interconnected commercial and communications systems, such as already observed today, demonstrate the powers of control that the False Prophet will one day exercise.

Just as the Bible says, the spirit of the Antichrist has been active these past 2,000 years, despite the fact that Satan did indeed lose some of his powers and freedoms. After Pentecost, the Holy Spirit was given to indwell the members of the Church, Christ’s very body on earth. Once this body has been removed from earth, and along with it also the indwelling restrainer (the “Paraclete”); the “beast” representing mankind’s complicit kingdoms, which has been obedient to the “spirit of the Antichrist,” will be superseded by “The Beast”—this being Satan himself in the form of a man, the 8th king (Revelation 17:8).

The saints will not witness his arrival. As the Bible says, Only “the inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because he once was, now is not, and yet will come” (Revelation 17:8b). This is consistent with the expectation that the Church will first be removed. The Beast will not come out of the Abyss until this “restrainer” is first withdrawn.

In the meantime, Satan and his hierarchy of fallen angels have been busy transforming the minds of mankind to accept humanism and globalism, and now await the opportune use for the global web of financial and economic systems that achieves the next best alternative to “omnipresence” and worldwide power.

Points to Ponder

The day is very near when it will be possible for a global authority to completely control global commerce. Already, it is technically impossible to live without money or a bank account. People that have attempted this must still rely on the charity and handouts of those that do have monetary income and bank accounts.

While the technology and the global systems stand prepared for this eventuality, the global “political” power structure is not yet in place. Such large organizations as the Bank of International Settlements, the World Bank … etc. have not yet had their levers of power given to a central authority. That development first awaits the emergence of the final 10 kings. These final events will happen very suddenly … once their time has arrived.

Christians today, as everyone, are already entrapped in a global financial system. While we enjoy its conveniences, we also suffer under the many materialistic temptations that the spirit behind these worldly systems incessantly proposes. Someday, these systems will be turned against the Tribulation Saints.

Today, pre-Rapture saints are implored to enter a different kind of transaction. “I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see” (Revelation 3:18). Those are the words of Christ to the 7th and last church that exists even now just prior to His return. It is not an impulse purchase, an approach so widely promoted in our culture today. The gratification is not instant, but eternal. The Apostles knew the cost of “gold refined by fire.”

Rather, as servants of God we commend ourselves in every way: in great endurance; in troubles, hardships and distresses; in beatings, imprisonments and riots; in hard work, sleepless nights and hunger; in purity, understanding, patience and kindness; in the Holy Spirit and in sincere love; in truthful speech and in the power of God; with weapons of righteousness in the right hand and in the left; through glory and dishonor, bad report and good report; genuine, yet regarded as impostors; known, yet regarded as unknown; dying, and yet we live on; beaten, and yet not killed; sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; poor, yet making many rich; having nothing, and yet possessing everything (2 Corinthians 6:4-10).
[1] Quoted from GlobalResearch.ca. Source: “Backbone of complex networks of corporations: The flow of control,” J.B. Glattfelder and S. Battiston, Chair of Systems Design, ETH Zurich, Kreuzplatz 5, 8032 Zurich, Switzerland.
[2] Washington Post, August 28, 2009.
[3] David C. Korten, “When Corporations Rule the World,” http://www.pcdf.org/corprule/failure.htm Accessed October 31, 2009.
[4] Source: Robert Shiller, “An Echo Chamber of Boom and Bust,” New York Times, Economic View, August 30, 2009.

“The problems of the world are huge and they cannot be ignored: terrorism, war, starvation, displacement, climate change, nuclear proliferation, trade inequality and financial crisis. The old way hasn’t always worked. Perhaps Mr. Naím has a point. Maybe the magic numbers work?” We have here quoted an international economist who is responding to a new idea regarding global governance.

To what magic numbers is he referring? Actually, he is wondering just what is the right number of countries needed to solve the world’s problems. Is it the Group of 20 nations (G-20), the G-8 or some other grouping? Or, in fact, could it be a group of 10… the exact number of the last-day 10 kings that the Bible prophesies will give their authority to the Antichrist? (Revelation 17:13).

To provide more background, the above-quoted comment was in response to a provocative and insightful article written by the influential Moisés Naím, the well-known Editor-in-Chief ofForeign Policy magazine and former executive director of the World Bank. Interestingly, Mr.Naím recently began advocating a new concept—global minilateralism. (We will explain this term shortly.)

Though he may not realize it, he strikes upon a very important eschatological issue. His recommendations fit hand in glove with Bible prophecy, but not necessarily in the way popularly thought. He is talking of a world that is moving to a post-globalism state. How can this be? Isn’t globalism a prophetic development? Then just what is this “minilateralism,” and why should we care? We will investigate.

World Now Moving to Post-Globalism

Globalism is certainly a hot topic of late. Recent confirmations that the Group of 20 (G-20) is now the prime policy body in the world is evidence to many observers that globalism is indeed forging ahead. Whereas smaller groups such as the G-7 determined global policy direction in the past, this power nexus has now moved to the G-20 forum, which also includes such countries as Brazil and China. Quoting one of literally hundreds of comments from international relations experts, “A striking outcome of the global financial crisis has been the substitution of the G-7 for the G-20 as the key forum for international coordination.”1[1]

Widely seen, this is a clear step in the direction of globalism. Most certainly, the recent G-20 proceedings held in Pittsburgh, United States, produced many boastful statements about the new resolve and capabilities of this august group. It seeks to solve problems it has defined from Global Warming to global financial instabilities. Will it be successful? It is almost certain that it will prove to be another ineffectual group, its great pronouncements nothing more than theatre and pomp. At this point, there is virtually no consensus as to why global imbalances and the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) occurred in the first place. With such confusion, how could they agree on solutions?

Bible prophecy backs up this opinion. In fact, globalism is not the final, exclusive power organization of an endtime world. We can already today see evidence that this shift could happen very soon. To explain why, let’s first review the concept of globalism.

Globalism: Prophetic but Overdone

Referencing some common definitions: “Globalism is an ideology that emphasizes the current trend toward international organizations and institutions.”2[2] Says the Merriam-Webster dictionary, it is “a national policy of treating the whole world as a proper sphere for political influence.”

Many debate and write about globalism’s implications for mankind—whether beneficial or disastrous. Though the term “globalism” is a new one (the word only coined as recently as the 1940s), countless thousands of books and articles have been written on this topic. Indeed, the world itself has become a political podium, the actions of most individual nations postured for a global audience. Yes, the “global village” is getting smaller by virtue of becoming more connected financially and economically (this being globalization). There is also convergence of ideology and culture, though not as advanced as global trade and financial systems. And, of course, globalism is a topic that is a favorite of many conspiracy theorists.

To be clear, the Bible clearly does prophesy that globalism will take place in the last days. God pronounces his last-day judgments upon all the nations collectively, as they are all engaged in rebelliousness, are pursuing similar ideologies and together rise up against Israel. For example, “Come near, you nations, and listen; pay attention, you peoples! Let the earth hear, and all that is in it, the world, and all that comes out of it! The LORD is angry with all nations; his wrath is upon all their armies. He will totally destroy them, he will give them over to slaughter” (Isaiah 34:1-2).

From prophecy we can deduce that the world would have forums such as the United Nations and global media networks that would be representative of world opinion and consensus. When Balaam prophesied, “For from the top of the rocks I see him, and from the hills I behold him: lo, the people shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations” (Numbers 23:9, KJV), this presumed that the world—“the nations” collectively—was united in not “reckoning” Israel. As it happens, that state of affairs exists today.

Yet, while globalism in the sense already defined does occur and persist, the world in fact does move to a post-globalism state. Here, we can rely on Biblical proof. The “global parliament of man,” as Alfred Tennyson called it3[3], will not rule the world in the end. Globalism is not the last state. Then what is? Actually, there are yet two regimes that come after— minilateralism (Naím’s word invention) and autocracy … the form of government in which the political power is held by a single, self-appointed ruler.

Two More Regimes Follow Modern Globalism

The last state of world rule is represented by the 8th king mentioned in Revelation 17:11. He follows 7 previous world gentile ruler kings that are shown as heads in John’s vision of the 7-headed beast that is ridden by the prostitute in Revelation 17. This image depicts consecutive dominating nation states and their founding kings. The 8th king is the Beast himself. But though he belongs to the seven (verse 11), he also comes from among the last-day 10 kings. He is the “little one, which came up among them” (Daniel 7:8).

Therefore, it is the 10-king period of rulership that is next to appear, not yet this final 8th king who will rule the world (this being the Antichrist). The 10 kings precede the Antichrist, as Daniel makes clear, in no uncertain terms: “The ten horns are ten kings who will come from this kingdom. After them another king will arise, different from the earlier ones” (Daniel 7:24). In conclusion, the 10 kings collectively represent the 7th head, which follows the 6th Roman head—but preceding the Antichrist, who then becomes the 8th beastly king.

All of this makes for a fascinating study. Unfortunately, we can only touch on a few of the salient points here. The important point to recognize is that the next stage of world rulership will be represented by a 10-nation coalition, though it will only be in existence for a very short period (Revelation 17:12). It has yet to appear. As close as it may be, it does not yet exist.

Why Might Globalism Be Superseded?

Obviously, a state of affairs where a coalition of 10 nations rules the world stands against the implicit goal of globalism … the idea that all mankind and nations are unified in determining the world’s fate. But why? Something additional to globalism takes place.

Now, let us allow Mr. Naím to speak:

When was the last time you heard that a large number of countries agreed to a major international accord on a pressing issue? Not in more than a decade. The last successful multilateral trade agreement dates back to 1994, when 123 countries gathered to negotiate the creation of the World Trade Organization and agreed on a new set of rules for international trade. Since then, all other attempts to reach a global trade deal have crashed. The same is true with multilateral efforts to curb nuclear proliferation; the last significant international nonproliferation agreement was in 1995, when 185 countries agreed to extend an existing nonproliferation treaty. In the decade and a half since, multilateral initiatives have not only failed, but India, Pakistan, and North Korea have demonstrated their certain status as nuclear powers. On the environment, the Kyoto Protocol, a global deal aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, has been ratified by 184 countries since it was adopted in 1997, but the United States, the world’s second-largest air polluter after China, has not done so, and many of the signatories have missed their targets. The pattern is clear: Since the early 1990s, the need for effective multicountry collaboration has soared, but at the same time multilateral talks have inevitably failed; deadlines have been missed; financial commitments and promises have not been honored; execution has stalled; and international collective action has fallen far short of what was offered and, more importantly, needed. These failures represent not only the perpetual lack of international consensus, but also a flawed obsession with multilateralism as the panacea for all the world’s ills. It has become far too dangerous to continue to rely on large-scale multilateral negotiations that stopped yielding results almost two decades ago. So what is to be done? To start, let’s forget about trying to get the planet’s nearly 200 countries to agree. We need to abandon that fool’s errand in favor of a new idea: minilateralism. By minilateralism, I mean a smarter, more targeted approach: We should bring to the table the smallest possible number of countries needed to have the largest possible impact on solving a particular problem. Think of this as minilateralism’s magic number.4[4]

Cutting to the nub of Mr. Naím’s argument: Today’s multilateral “globalism” amounts to little more than “beating the gums.” It is ineffective … there is no accountability … no power to enforce change. He is saying that a small group of powerful nations—not the global, toothless forum such as the United Nations with its 192 members—should therefore dictate global agendas.

But why is this important and necessary? Well, to Mr. Naím’s mind, because the world faces huge, disastrous problems that must be fixed. These emergencies—present and potentially future—therefore provide the imperative for a smaller group of nations, who together have dominant power, to seize the global agenda.

This is an earth-changing perspective. Yet, it fits the current and coming times. It is very possible that the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) stands to be a major catalyst to this new state of world rulership.

A World Set-up For Domination

It is a fact that power in the world today is not equally distributed. Global power has many forms. We can categorize them into two broad types—Hard Power and Soft Power. Soft Power includes various forms of world influence. Here can be numbered memberships on world transnational organizations such as the International Monetary Fund or NATO (and a host of many others), or influence upon world culture. Hard Power, by comparison, is more direct and can include such factors as military might, the size of world trade in goods and services, a country’s relative population size and so on.

Two obstructions stand in the way of the emergence of the 7th head of world rule, this being the 10-king Global Power Coalition. The first is that one nation today is still a superpower. This is the United States. For the most part, it can do as it wishes and need not comply with the rules set by world multilateral organizations. Before a 10-nation coalition can rule the world, it will require that the distribution of power in the world be relatively leveled out among the leading nations. Whatever the allied group that will seize world power, it must collectively be able to overcome any superpower. Otherwise, it could not exist uncontested. This development is called “multipolarism” and is already well underway. (Please see the 2-part series entitled “Endtime Shoe: Fitting the World for Ten Toes”—MCM, January and February 2009—for a detailed review of this development.)

The second structure that obstructs the emergence of a 10-nation Power Coalition is as Mr.Naím already described—the ineffectiveness of today’s globalism, which involves every country, whether significant or a small nation-state on a pacific, tropical island.

The logical path therefore, is both multipolarism and minilateralism. The former broadens the power and neutralizes the lone superpowers; the latter centralizes global power to a smaller group, thereby circumventing globalism’s organizational mire. As Goldilocks observed, something in the middle is needed … it will be a beast but not a “baby bear” nor a “papa bear,” but a “mama bear.”

The Power of Ten

How many nations will it require to reach a position of global dominance? Not many … certainly not 20. Why? Consider the distribution of various economic, financial and other power measures in the world today. Of the many factors that we could outline, reflect on the following:

• The 10 largest economies in the world represent 68% of world output.
• Concerning world government debt, 10 nations account for 79%. Interestingly, the bigger economies in the world are actually more indebted than the rest of the world. That fits with prophecies that suggest the final ruler will be indebted (Habakkuk 2:6-8).
• The countries with the 10 largest stock markets account for 75.4% of world value in US dollar terms (end 2008).
• The 153 members of the World Trade Organization represent about 95% of world trade.The nations that are the top-10 global exporters of goods and services alone account for 53%.5[5]
• The 10 most populous nations in the world account for 66% of the world’s population.

No matter which measure we may use, we will find that it only requires 10 or so nations to reach a majority or balance of dominance. We see that the nations of the world are already ideally aligned for the emergence of the prophesied multipolar, minilateralist state shown as the 10-king Global Power Coalition.

Along Comes the Global Financial Crisis

World policymakers and financial economists are hopeful that the new initiatives set by thePittsburgh round of G-20 meetings will lead to resolution of the Global Financial Crisis. I believe that such expectations will be sorely disappointed. The G-20 has no means of enforcing the implementation of its resolutions. The actions of individual countries will continue to be driven by the interests of their own domestic political agenda. Self-interests will inevitably rule and in some cases, stand directly counter to the stated goals of the G-20.

Actually, this is already the case and cannot be denied. Currently, the interests of various major countries couldn’t be more opposite. For example, in some respects, the interests of theUnited States and Europe are opposite to that of China and India. These two nations, accounting for approximately two-fifths of the world population, see it as necessary to continue to expand trade. China and other Asian countries deliberately keep their currencies low to ensure that their exports are competitively priced. This in turn causes Americans to lose jobs and external deficits to remain high. The U.S. and other advanced members of the G-20 wantChina to encourage its citizens to spend more on consumption and export less. In the meantime, North American consumers love the cheap prices of imported Chinese products that they can buy at Wal-Mart. How to resolve this issue? There are many more intractable problems that will not be resolved by the G-20.

As it is, China (most likely also India and Japan) and some Middle Eastern countries such asIran will not be part of the 10-nation coalition. This can be deduced from Bible prophecy. They are neither nations comprised of Roman peoples or their offshoots, or already were kingdoms in power at the time that John received the prophecies of the book of Revelation. He prophesied at that time that “The ten horns you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom” (Revelation 17:12). As China already existed then, it is not one of the countries that will be part of the 10-king group.

Thoughts to Ponder

It is during the reign of the 6th head on the beast—the first Roman-people-lineage era—in which we are living today. Globalism has flourished to its late-date state. Now, we are likely very near embarking into the 7th head era, which is ruled by a 10-nation coalition.

It could very well be that the Global Financial Crisis and its future fall-out will prove to be the catalysts that will bring the world to a state of minilateralism. In the meantime, such countries as China and other emerging nations are fast accumulating economic power. Already, the economies of the non-advanced members of the G-20 nations have surpassed that of the advanced members. It is quite possible that the entire east-Asian orb of nations along withChina could be in opposition to the final 10-kings. This very development could be seen to actually hasten the 10-king formation. In such a scenario, these 10 nations would need to ally themselves against any opposition before it is too late.

Minilateralism is not as cute or toothless as the prefix “mini” implies. The concept of minilateralism for the time being is meant by Mr. Naím as a collaborative, peaceful process. In the end, however, it is more likely to result in policies of exclusion and oppression.

NOTES

[1] Agnès Bénassy-Quéré & Olena Havrylchyk, “G-20, Not G-7,” RGE Monitor, September 25, 2009.
[2] Wikipedia, Accessed Sept. 28, 2009, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalism
[3] Alfred Tennyson, Locksley Hall, 1846.
[4] Moisés Naím, “Minilateralism,” Foreign Policy, July/August 2009.
[5] CIA. Using available data from years 2006 to 2008.