ORIGINAL BLOG POST PUBLISHED IN FINNISH ON MAY 9, 2023

READING TIME: 20 MINUTES

---

In a previous blog post, I promised to write more on this topic. Of all the counter-arguments I have received over the years against my research, this seems to be the main (and often only) counter-argument to the idea of Charles as the ultimate Antichrist of the Bible. In fact, I have presented dozens of different arguments from the Bible to support my own view, often very detailed ones where I have had to dive deep into European history to show that the Bible also predicted the reign of Charles III. And then all those detailed arguments of mine, which have taken me hundreds of pages to justify, are shot down by this one ‘argument’, which can be written in one sentence. Frustrating (sigh). I have answered this argument several times already, but perhaps it is better to answer it properly and forcefully, so that my point on this issue too is clear to all readers.

The argument therefore contains three separate claims: (1) Charles is too old, (2) he is too unpopular, and (3) he is too uncharismatic. The argument thus assumes that the Antichrist predicted in the Bible should be young, popular, and charismatic. But is that assumption really true? I challenge the reader to provide at least one verse from the Bible where the Antichrist is said to be young. The assumption that he would be about 30 years old is based solely on the fact that Jesus Christ himself was about 30 years old when he began his ministry (Luke 3:23). Since the Antichrist is Christ’s substitute, opponent and His opposite, he is thought to imitate Christ in all things (even in age). Such an implicit argument is not valid to me for Antichrist’s young age. I ask the reader to provide a direct verse of Scripture where he could be inferred to be young and handsome (or even young and ugly). I just wrote on Facebook to a friend who had read my book:

I don’t see Charles’ age as a problem at this point in history. Perhaps in 10-20 years it could be called a problem. After all, nowhere in the Bible does it say anything about the age of that person. In fact, Charles is now about the same age as most other world leaders today. Charles is now 74, Biden is 80, Trump is 76, Putin is 70, Xi Jingping is 69, Erdogan is 69, Netanyahu is 73, Pope Francis is 86, etc.

Assumption #2: The Antichrist should be popular. This assumption is not true in light of the Word of God itself. Daniel 11:21 tells us very directly in its prophecy about this man: “And in his place a despicable person will arise, on whom the majesty of kingship has not been conferred; but he will come in a time of tranquility and seize the kingdom by intrigue.” This prophecy was originally fulfilled in Antiochus Epiphanes of the Seleucid kingdom (175 – 164 BC), but in Matthew 24:15 Jesus implied that the prophecy concerning that person would also be fulfilled in the coming figure who would desecrate the rebuilt temple in Jerusalem, also spoken of by Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:4. The word “despicable” in this verse is the Hebrew word “bazah” and the word means despised  – the opposite of popular. The same Hebrew word is also used of our Lord Jesus in the famous Messianic prophecy in Isaiah 53 about the suffering servant of God who was “despised [bazah] and abandoned by men, A man of great pain and familiar with sickness; And like one from whom people hide their faces, He was despised [bazah], and we had no regard for Him.“

In Daniel 11:21, the “despised” translation is also supported by the fact that – as the King James translation says – “they shall not give him the honour of the kingdom”. That is, because of that person’s unpopularity, his people would not want to give him the majesty of kingship. But “he shall come peaceably, and will seize the kingdom with flatteries” (KJV). Assumption #3: The Antichrist should be charismatic. This assumption is often confused with two earlier assumptions. To be charismatic, he would also have to be young, popular, and handsome. In reality, a person’s charisma has nothing to do with his/her age, popularity or looks. Of course, many Hollywood actors and actresses are very handsome, beautiful and charismatic. But I’m talking about how charisma or magnetism is defined in academic vocabulary and not in the vernacular.

But first we should answer the question of where the Bible says that the Antichrist is charismatic. Well, nowhere exactly. But it is inferred from the fact that this person “was given power over all tribes and nations and tongues and tribes of people. And all who dwell on the earth worship him, everyone whose name is not written in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain, from the foundation of the world.” (Revelation 13:7-8) I guess a person like that must have some “dark charisma” to be able to mesmerize the whole world to kiss his feet. Didn’t Hitler also enchant the German people with his dark charisma? Yes, but Hitler was not seen as an attractive figure at all, even by the Germans of the 1930s. Sebastian Haffner, a contemporary historian of Hitler’s rise to power who lived in Nazi Germany, described in his book Defying Hitler (1939):

In 1930, he was still widely regarded as a somewhat embarrassing figure with a dismal past; the Munich’s saviour of 1923, the man of the grotesque beer-cellar putsch. Besides, for ordinary (and not only ‘clever’) Germans, his personal appearance was also thoroughly repellent – the pimp’s forelock, the hoodlum’s elegance, the Viennese suburban accent, the interminable speechifying, epileptic behavior with its wild gesticulations, foam at the mouth, and alternately shifty and staring eyes.

How did this “thoroughly repellent” figure become the “saviour of the German nation”, adored by the whole nation? He did not win the hearts of the German people by his appearance or his personal appearance. Not even with his ‘ interminable speechifying’ or ‘epileptic behavior with its wild gesticulations”. How, then, do we explain Hitler’s almost godlike magnetism among German people? To quote Professor Joseph Nyomarkay in his book Charisma and Factionalism in the Nazi Party (1967):

A leader is charismatic if he is regarded by his followers as a person whose powers and qualities are so exceptional that they are of divine origins and inaccessible to the ordinary person… By virtue of such extraordinary, supernatural, and superhuman powers, the charismatic leader is permitted to rule… “What alone is important”, writes Weber, “is how an individual is actually regarded by those subject to charismatic authority, by his followers or disciples (Weber, 1947, p. 359). Charisma, as Davies correctly points out, should not be considered as a “characteristic of leaders as such, but [as] a relationship between leaders and followers” (1954, p. 1083). Although charisma is subjective, resting on such qualities as the followers ascribe to the leader, it would be a mistake to assume that it could be ascribed to just anyone.

There has to be a measure of extraordinariness in the person of the charismatic leader in order to evoke the enthusiasm and devotion necessary for the establishment of charismatic authority. What constitutes “extraordinariness” is of course again subjective, depending on the existing political culture, but it can hardly be doubted that a charismatic relation can be generated only by a person with some special qualities. Thus, no matter how extraordinary he may be, a person not will become a charismatic leader unless his extraordinariness is recognized by others. The transformation of extraordinariness into charisma depends on the political skills and magnetism of the potential charismatic leader and on his conviction on his historical role. A person, if he is successfully to transform extraordinariness into charisma, he must take himself seriously; he must see himself as called to fulfill some historical mission. This sense of mission and its complements, the necessary political skills, are the prerequisites for the establishment of charismatic legitimacy [emphasis mine].

For centuries, English monarchs have believed in their ‘divine rights of king’ to rule. It was precisely because of this belief that civil war broke out in England in the 1600s during the reign of Charles I, with which that king also lost his head and England entered a short-lived republican era. When Charles I’s son Charles II came to the throne in 1660 and restored the monarchy, many republicans were beheaded and others hanged, torn and dismembered (a slow and painful death sentence for traitors to the king in England at that time). The United Kingdom is now a constitutional monarchy, but its monarchs still believe in these divine rights of kings, as the pious liturgy at the coronation ceremony on Saturday attested. The Creator of the universe himself and Jesus Christ hands over to them that power and majesty of kingship, in the words of the Archbishop of Cantebury.

I can understand that in our post-Christian era, which has become completely secular, such a solemn ceremony, that recflects the Christian origins of the West, may make a great impression on many Christians. Let me enlighten readers, however, that children’s fairy tales are not real history. In 1600s England, for example, there was no freedom of religion and conscience, as everyone had to profess the religion that the king professed (i.e. Catholic Christians had a pretty tough time as subjects of the Protestant king and Protestant Christians as subjects of the Catholic king). The freedoms and civil rights that we take for granted in modern world were originally born out of the people rising up against the arbitrary rule of the monarchy. Talk of how Finland, for example, should be turned into a monarchy is based on nothing more than a historically illiterate romanticisation of monarchy and the medieval European feudalistic society where the common people were forced to cultivate the land on estates owned by the nobility as serfs tied to those estates.

Does Charles III meet the criteria of a charismatic leader? His biographer Catherine Mayer, who interviewed the then Prince of Wales for her book, said of him in 2015: ‘He has an incredible personal magnetism’. Many readers may disagree completely with Mayer’s assessment and see Charles as a rather dry and uninteresting person. But it doesn’t matter how you see him because a person’s charisma is “subjective, resting on such qualities as the followers ascribe to the leader”. But for a charismatic person ” to evoke the enthusiasm and devotion”, “There has to be a measure of extraordinariness in the person of the charismatic leader“. But “a person not will become a charismatic leader unless his extraordinariness is recognized by others. The transformation of extraordinariness into charisma depends on the political skills and magnetism of the potential charismatic leader and on his conviction on his historical role. A person, if he is successfully to transform extraordinariness into charisma, he must take himself seriously; he must see himself as called to fulfill some historical mission. This sense of mission and its complements, the necessary political skills, are the prerequisites for the establishment of charismatic legitimacy.”

All of the above criteria for a charismatic leader apply to Charles. He is a man who sees himself as a chosen one, a man who has been given the burden of saving the whole planet and who believes he was born for that very purpose . He has a strong sense of the importance and urgency of his life mission. He feels it is so important that he began his 2010 book Harmony with a very bold sentence: ‘This is a call to revolution!’ Historically, revolutionaries and monarchists have been each other’s blood enemies, but this “blue-blooded Che Guevara” is now campaigning for a global “revolution of sustainability” where we would restore “the lost balance between earth and humanity”, to enable “endlessly flourishing communities”, and “heal the Earth” as he so openly proclaims in that book his messianic salvation message. In a trailer for a documentary of the same name released in 2010 on the US NBC channel, and a few years later at the Sundance Film Festival in London, he said in a painfully frustrated tone: ‘I don’t want my grandchildren or yours to come to me and say ‘why the hell you didn’t do something’ if you knew what the problem was. This is what motivates me.”

---

---

Ten years later, speaking at the World Economic Forum’s 50th anniversary meeting in Davos, he pinned the 2019 global school protests, initiated by Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg, on this earlier complaint about his and our grandchildren, who now came to complain to adults that they had not done enough to preserve the planet’s climate for the younger generation This is why some people already see Charles as a prophet and in an almost divine light, who should be given the rule over the whole planet. His admirer, fashion designer Vivienne Westwood, said this about him in 2015: “He is a visionary. Even as a young man in the 1970s, he realised that we must live in harmony with the earth. And all his charities have done so much good… We would have a wonderful world if he had ruled it all that time.” Even some Finnish Christians seem to wish that our country’s independence would be handed over to Charles, because according to a friend of mine, an acquaintance of his just wrote this:

There are many kinds of authorities and leaders in the world. Take your pick. I recommend you pick one who worships God… Of all the people with similar authority, I recommend you to pick Charles… like Sauli Niinistö and Sanna Marin and all that, I recommend all of them to pick Charles.

Well, perhaps the person in question didn’t quite mean literally what I implied, but unfortunately many Christians seem to be fascinated by the way Charles “worshipped God” in that coronation vow. Another of his admirers, Michael Dixon, who heads an alternative medicine charity supported by Charles, once called him a “healing prince” who “suffers with his people” (Mayer: The Heart of a King, p. 152) like the suffering servant of God in Isaiah 53, “by whose wounds we are healed.” I would ask any thinking person that if Charles is really such a tedious grey-haired guy who doesn’t even have any real authority – as they claim – how on earth has he managed to get the world’s richest industrialised nations and 300 of the world’s most powerful multinational corporations to promote his political agenda for his “sustainability revolution”? Last year he wrote an article in Newsweek magazine where he basically called for the creation of a world government and a single totalitarian and collectivist global world order where the whole public and private sector is harnessed to work together to promote this ecofascist agenda:

As we tackle the crisis, we must also coordinate our national efforts. The scale and scope of the threat calls for regional and global solutions that will require the active participation of every sector of industry, in every country around the world.

Central to this effort will be a military-style campaign to marshal the strength of the global private sector because it will take trillions, not billions, of dollars to transform our current fossil fuel-based economy to one that is genuinely renewable and sustainable. This level of funding, which exceeds global G.D.P., is essential because there are too many countries which are burdened with growing levels of debt and simply cannot afford to “go green” without significant assistance…

This point has been reinforced during the past two years of the Covid pandemic, when over a million lives have been lost—losses that will particularly be felt at this time of year. Health and economic disruption has affected us all. Yet, amongst the darkness, we have seen the best of humankind; countless people and professions that have placed our collective wellbeing at the forefront of their work. In a highly individualistic age, there has been a move from a “Me” mentality to a “We” mentality, and a renewed belief that together we can tackle some of the greatest challenges of our time.

Looking towards 2022, a year of huge opportunity, we need a similar “We” mentality on a global level in our battle to create a cleaner and healthier planet. Acknowledging our interconnectedness as a global people, let us recognise that our borders do not define us in the face of global threats, and that, ultimately, none of us is safe until we are all safe… It should not scare us but inspire us, with the greatest sense of urgency, to address the most universal challenges of our age. At present, there is none more pressing than putting Nature, people and our singular and fragile planet at the heart of how we live, work and do business to create the brightest possible future for humanity.

This is very dangerous rhetoric because already during the pandemic we saw how the free societies of the West were sacrificing the individual freedoms of their citizens because the “common threat” required each of us to put them aside and accept the “new normal”. According to Charles, this “we mentality” during the pandemic was an encouraging model for how Western societies should act in the face of the climate threat. This is the rhetoric of a tyrant, a tyrant who wants to spread his tyranny to the whole world. But in order to carry out their tyranny, tyrants often need a cult of personality to create the impression to the general public of a large popular support for this leader and his agenda. It is not real popular support, but artificial. Jesus Christ came among the common people “preach the gospel to the poor.. to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captive… To set at liberty those who are oppressed” (Luke 4:18).

He took upon himself the punishment often meted out to Roman slaves, death on a cross for our sins. He was a friend of sinners, but he spoke very harshly to the ruling elite. He did not have to resort to propaganda and lies to get the common people to love Him. He won them over by becoming one of us, the lowest of the low, taking the form of a slave and becoming like men (Phil 2:7), even though He was King of Kings and Lord of lords, Creator of all creation (Col 1:16). But the kings of this world need to buy that favour often by resorting to lies and propaganda. That is why Paul said that the revelation of the man of lawlessness would be “according to the working of Satan, in every power, and in signs, and in wonders of falsehood” (2 Thessalonians 2:9, BLB).

This, by the way, is another thing I often get objections to in relation to Charles’ personality. A FB acquaintance repeatedly tries to sell me on his theory that the Antichrist is Maitreya preached by the late New Age priest Benjamin Creme. I have not denied that he is not and have often stated why Charles also fits the role of this particular Mr. Maitreya. But the aforementioned person was referring to Maitreya as some mysterious creep who allegedly has made a few supernatural appearances to large crowds of people here and there and of whom a few photographs have been managed to be taken. I would think that the vast majority of people would run away from this dubious freak, if he still makes these surprise visits to crowds of people. At least I would.

But according to this FB friend, the Antichrist is supposed to appear as this alleged Maitrya-like wonder man who will bring his great universal message of love and appear as a Christ-like performer of miracles and signs. According to him, a spoiled brat like Charles does not fit his image of this man. Another FB acquaintance commented thus: “My honest opinion is that the Antichrist does not behave like that [like Charles, who demands constant service and pampering]. He will be much more “down to earth” and normal.” But what these friends fail to take into account is that it is precisely this down-to-earth guy Charles has sought to present himself to the general public (and quite literally). What his character is, of course, in reality, is very far from the image he wants to present to the public.

As in his coronation vows where he promised to rule “following the example of Christ, who came not to serve but to be served.” In fact, Charles’ own private life is in stark contrast to this, as he requires his servants even to squeeze toothpaste into his toothbrush every morning and evening. But this is precisely the kind of character we should expect from the Antichrist, for he is not only a substitute or opponent of Christ, but also His complete opposite. Does he then need to be some kind of Maitreya-like miracle worker? Paul does mention miracles and signs in connection with his appearance. Perhaps there may yet be some supernatural miracles or illusionary magic tricks performed with the help of demonic spirits. Or perhaps the miracles are the technological miracles of our day, which are also referred to in Revelation 13, but many of which can be explained by the technology of our time, like an AI (the image of the beast that speaks?).

Conclusion

So all in all, Charles is able to meet all the possible criteria on this issue as well, even though the opponents have tried to turn it against his candidacy. Although I have said from the beginning that I could be wrong in my research, as none of us are infallible, I would still challenge any opponent to give a proper reason why I am wrong. If I can knock down their only significant argument against Charles, then maybe they don’t have any substantial counter-argument for why I would be wrong. There’s plenty of shouting of all sorts and sloppy throwing of opinions about anything and everything. Someone even said that I will get the judgments of Revelation upon myself when I “confuse” the beast of Revelation with the Antichrist and thus “distort” the Bible. If God’s people do not know even the basics, then how can you bring out the “strong meat” to them (Hebrews 5:12) to them.