Revelation 13:1 And I stood (Gr. Histemi, was made to stand, he stood, I stood)
upon the sand (Gr. Ammos, an insecure foundation as a symbolic position taken up by the Dragon in view of the rising of the Beast out of the sea)
of the sea (Gr. Thalassa, emblematic of the restless condition of nations),
and saw a beast (Gr. Therion, a wild beast in the eyes of God as to the two Antichristian potentates who are destined to control the affairs of the nations with Satanic power; from the midst of this state arises the beast, symbolic of the final Gentile power dominating the federated nations of the Roman world Dan. 2, 7, etc. see Rev. 17:1,15),
rise up (Gr. Anabino, "coming up" or "rise up" with reference to the beast)
out of the sea (Gr. Thalassa, those who had come victorious from the beast, of wild and restless conditions of nations),
having seven heads (Gr. Hepta, seven, signifies to be full, completeness; Gr. Kephale, heads; symbolic of the Imperial rulers of the Roman power)
and ten horns (Gr. Deka, ten is regarded as the measure of human responsibility, used figuratively; Gr. Keras, a horn, is used in the plural, as a symbol of strength in visions on the heads of beasts as symbolic of national potentates; political powers; not necessarily ten nations, see Daniel 7 and 8 for more description),
and upon his horns ten crowns (Gr. Diadema, crown is always the symbol of kingly or imperial dignity, translated "diadem" instead of ‘crown’ and is of the claims of the Dragon),
and upon his heads the name of blasphemy (Gr. Blasphemia, evil speaking; defying and insulting God).
To go to a reference of flashbacks or history that led to the Judgments in regard to Revelation.
Pros: WTO Trade Topics: from http://www.wto.org/wto/new/press155.htm
Resources: CNN PRESS RELEASE, dated 29 November 1999.
Please read this article it is very informative.
"The WTO is not a world government and no one has any intention of making it one. Its decisions are made by member states, and supervising its work are ministers who are all responsible to their respective governments and peoples, Director-General Mike Moore told non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in opening the Seattle Symposium on International Trade Issues in the Next Decade on 29 November.
Mr. Moore said that without the multilateral trading system, "it would be a poorer world of competing blocs and power politics, a world of more conflict, uncertainty and marginalization". He said that "our dream must be a world managed by persuasion, the rule of law and the peaceful settlement of differences".
The full text follows.
A decade and a half ago the Uruguay Round was launched in the face of public apathy. No one can say that about Seattle, that's a deliverable. We have gone from apathy to anxiety and even anger, not just from the demonstrators in the streets, but from people around the world who feel that for too long they have been locked out of the benefits of growth, and from those who fear for their security in a time of uncertainty and change.
If people - especially young people - say unemployment is too high, they are right. If unions want better wages and conditions for working people, they are right. If environmentalists say that growth must be sustainable - and not destroy the planet's ecological balance - they are right. When developing countries say they are not getting fair access and economic justice, they are absolutely right.
First let's be clear about what the WTO does not do. The WTO is not a world government, a global policeman, or an agent for corporate interests. It has no authority to tell countries what trade policies - or any other policies - they should adopt. It does not overrule national laws. It does not force countries to kill turtles or lower wages or employ children in factories. Put simply, the WTO is not a supranational government - and no one has any intention of making it one.
Our decisions must be made by our Member States, agreements ratified by Parliaments and every two years Ministers meet to supervise our work. There's a bit of a contradiction with people outside saying we are not democratic, when inside over 120 Ministers all elected by the people or appointed by elected Presidents, decide what we will do.
The WTO is an international organization that mediates trade disputes, seeks to reduce barriers between countries, and embodies the agreements. As President Clinton said, globalization is not a policy choice, it's a fact. Globalization is being driven above all by the power of technology - by faster and cheaper transportation, by new communications, by the increasing weightlessness of our economies - the financial services, telecommunications, entertainment, and e-commerce that make up a growing share of global trade. It's also driven by common values of freedom, democracy and the desire to share what the world has to offer.
The real question we should ask ourselves is whether globalization is best left unfettered - dominated by the strongest and most powerful, the rule of the jungle - or managed by an agreed system of international rules, ratified by sovereign governments.
How will the global economy be made more stable by undermining its foundation of rules and cooperation? By returning to the same system of regional blocs and trade anarchy that helped plunge us into world war in the 1930's?
How are developing countries helped by shutting our markets, restricting their exports and worsening their marginalization?
How is the global environment improved by retarding growth, distorting prices, or subsidizing the consumption of scarce resources?
Command economies have the worst consequences for the environment, for human rights and for jobs, education and health. And, incidentally, totalitarian countries always pose a greater threat to peace.
How will we find jobs for the unemployed - or homes for the dispossessed - by making our economies and societies poorer? Consider this: exports have accounted for more than a quarter of US economic growth in the United States in the past six years. And almost 20 million new jobs.
The US uses less steel now than 30 years ago. Trade between countries can do no more violence to the environment than trade within countries. Of course, we can do better, that's why you and I are here.
The OECD has concluded that a new round of tariff liberalization would boost world economic output by 3 per cent - or over 1.2 trillion dollars - and that developing countries would benefit most. India's GDP would grow by 9.6 per cent, China's by 5.5 per cent, sub-Saharan Africa's by 3.7 per cent.
I'm not suggesting that the pain and the problems associated with technological and economic change are not real. They are. And we must address them with the appropriate domestic policies: that's the function of governments.
Remember when the Berlin wall came down, when Nelson Mandela walked to freedom, when the last imperial European Empire collapsed, when the Colonels returned to their barracks in South America. From the Congo to Cambodia, Poland to Chile, we all celebrated these universal values of freedom. No one condemned globalisation or the ideals of freedom. Why is it when the smoke clears, people chose freedom? And now these same freedom fighters are in Seattle, demanding an opportunity to trade freely. Are you going to tell them the old days and ways were better? I won't. I'm here to open the door for working men and women.
Those who oppose and protest are not all bad or mad. Many want to improve the WTO. Others want to capture it to reflect their interests - which is a form of flattery I suppose. Most seek honest engagement. The World Wide Fund for Nature - to take just one example - has made several constructive suggestions about improving the interface between trade and the environment. We should listen, reflect, then act. Earlier I spoke to the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions. Here too there is a surprising degree of shared understanding about how trade can help improve labour standards - and vice versa.
If we lift living standards we will improve and lift labour standards, human rights and get better results for those who are sick and those who yearn to learn.
Trade is not the answer to all our problems, but it provides part of the solution. 50,000 people may be demonstrating against us at Seattle. But remember too, that over 30 countries - some 1.5 billion people - want to join the WTO. They know what it offers and they want to be part of it. Ask them what they want.
And what's wrong in wanting China and Russia to be part of a rules-based world? It is one of those great contradictions, that while the world celebrates political freedom as it has spread throughout Europe, Africa, Asia and South America, the open minds that celebrate these freedoms frequently close their minds to the economic freedoms that trade offers. There's a contradiction among those who give generously at Church on Sunday when there is a flood or earthquake in the third world, then on Monday sign a petition to lock out the products their workers create.
What are we fighting for in Seattle? We are fighting for a multilateral trading system that is an essential component of the architecture for international cooperation - a firm foothold in an uncertain world. The world would not be a safer place without the UN, IMF, World Bank, or WTO despite their imperfections. The GATT/WTO system is a force for international peace and order. A fortification against disorder. This is reason enough to insist on the rightness of what we are doing.
We are also fighting to reduce poverty and to create a more inclusive world. We all want a fairer world, a world of opportunity accessible to all. Just ask the mother with a sick child who wants the best medical advice the world has to offer - whether its from Boston or Oxford or Johannesburg.
When I was a boy it would have taken a year's wages of a worker to buy the Encyclopaedia Britannica for their children. Today, it's free on the Internet. Who want's to visit a dentist based on technology 20 years old? Think of what technology and science are doing for education and health.
The old divides of North-South, of left and right, no longer apply. What divides us today is the difference between those that welcome the future and those that fear it. Today the WTO comprises 135 countries - compared to just 23 who negotiated the GATT in 1948. None of these countries wants less trade, less investment, fewer jobs, technology or research. No, they want the same things for their families as we want.
Lastly we are fighting to create a world that is more open and interdependent, a world of lower barriers and greater freedom. "Freedom is indivisible" - President Kennedy reminded us over 35 years ago. This should be remembered by all those who would resurrect the walls between us. Of course economic freedom is not the only freedom. But it is an indispensable part of all the other freedoms we hold important - freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, the freedom of choice and opportunity.
There is a strong argument that economic, social and political freedom is a basic pre-requisite for development.
I began by asking what the world would be like without the multilateral trading system. Let me answer my own question. It would be a poorer world of competing blocs and power politics - a world of more conflict, uncertainty and marginalization. Too much of this century was marked by force and coercion. Our dream must be a world managed by persuasion, the rule of law, the settlement of differences peacefully by the law and in co-operation. Seattle ought to be remembered then with confidence, in our case that economic and political freedom means higher living standards and a better lifestyle. Let's hope our vision of the new century matches that of our parents who living through depression and war, then created us and our institutions. Let's honour them. Thank you."
As you can see by the above the pro's believe that the anti-WTO protesters are a bunch of "Noah's ark of flat-earth advocates, protectionist trade unions and yuppies" yearning for a renewal of the anti-establishment protests of the 60's, and revenge for the incident at Kent State University.
The globalized world of no walls that we live in now requires an institution to set basic trade rules (substitute for walls). Council on Foreign Relations expert Michael Mandelbaum states, "Rules are a subtitute for walls -- when you don't have walls, you need more rules." Some countries will try to use their own rules to erect new walls against trade, which is what the WTO judiciates for. They claim that the anti-WTO protesters fear that the WTO will become the global government or Big Brother controlling our lifestyles. They also claim that the protesters are actually trying to impose their own labor and environmental standards on the rest of the world.
WTO has mobilized the power of trade and provided every country and company who embellished the global trade with improved labor, legal, intellectual property and environmental standards. The belief here lies in that they intend on changing the world by coalition-building with companies (big business) and consumers (mankind) to improve the standard of living for everyone in the world.
Critical of the WTO:
The anti-WTO protesters claim that the major fault in the World Trade Organization, which is a semi-secret, supreme body that can cancel international laws of the U.S. without Congressional authority of a democratic society. They claim that the WTO has ruled against every environmental, health and safety policy brought before it. Money and profits are supreme, and its goal is to pull all nations and people down to the level of the lowest complaining member.
Pro-WTO groups claim that these protesters in Seattle are Pat Buchanan ruffians adopting 1960s tactics. If so Pat has joined a long list of ex-Presidential candidates that will never get elected because they are not pro-WTO. Every president since Jimmy Carter that has been elected was pro-WTO. Has anybody ever wondered how Bill Clinton even got elected and made it through two terms? Even on the last election Bob Doyle was against the WTO, but became pro-WTO a few months before the 1996 campaign.
The citizens of each nation may have been kept in the dark in total ignorance of this situation. The promise of widespread prosperity and benefits has lured all that partake in it to step out on the spider's web. They have put their faith in mankind's rulers to lead them.
The protesters are a mix of environmentalists, consumer advocates and organized labor. All have in some way benefitted from the 25 percent increase in the world's economy. Watched as world hunger has decreased. Seen the end of the Cold War and the threat of war declining. Aware of the creation of genetically engineered food sources. Stood by inudated as our industrial economy has converted into a technological age of high-tech and service jobs, but unemployment is at its lowest. Therefore pro-WTO persons make the claim that everyone on the earth is wealthier.
The WTO is the only effective mechanism to achieve that goal to deter countries from pursuing their own economic self-interest. It will probably not be stopped from achieving that goal. It is inevitable, that mankind will choose the easiest path to provide monetary and global security for itself.
By the way as soon as anyone finds out which side the Anarchists who instigated the violence in Seattle are on, please let me know.
A Final Word to the Pro's and Con's: both have left God out of their equation.
I can see the dilemma quite clearly. Remember the Roman Empire, it's goal was constant expansion. It engulfed many countries, but did not destroy them. Instead they set each up with its own local governments, who complied to rules set by Rome, but left them to regulate their internal affairs. As long as they could handle it, it was fine. If not they consulted the Roman negotiator for a solution to their dispute. The Roman soldiers became the peacemakers and the world societies became dependant on Rome for their well-being, peace and security from global invasion. It sounds very much like a world that is slowly being influenced by a democracy political system. Our present world is fast becoming dependant on the peace and prosperity that the WTO trade pacts will facilitate, the rules may someday extend much deeper into our societies than we might like to see. At that point, we will be forced to make the hardest choices that have ever faced mankind.
The WTO is just the medium for mankind (the restless nations). Earlier I proposed the meaning of Revelation 13:1 regarding "and ten horns," and the meaning of ten was the measure of human responsibility, used figuratively, and horn, is used in the plural, as a symbol of strength in visions on the heads of beasts as symbolic of national potentates; political powers; not necessarily ten nations, see Daniel 7 and 8 for more description.
The following verses may shed some future light on that development.
Rev. 17:4 And the woman was arrayed(‘Periballo’ to cast around or about, to put on, array, to cloth oneself)
in purple (‘Porphureos’ purple, a reddish purple; some have ‘Porphura’ a purple garment; the badge of the empire.)
and scarlet colour (‘Kokkinos’ derived from ‘kokkos’, used of the "berries" from insect eggs, whose Arabic name is girmiz, whence the word crimson came from; used here of the clothing of the "woman" as seen sitting on the "beast"; of interest is that Pope Paul II, made it a crime for any one but cardinals to wear hats of scarlet),
and decked with gold (‘Chrusoo’ a verb, deck, to gild with gold, chrusos, gold; pp. jewelry made of gold)
and precious stones (‘Lithos’ is used as the adornment of religious Babylon; gems)
and pearls (‘Margarites’ a pearl),
having a golden (‘Chruseos’ denotes overlaid with gold)
cup (‘Poterion’ denotes a drinking vessel of the evil deeds of Babylon; pp. a golden goblet)
in her hand full (‘Gemo’ to be full, heavily laden with abominations)
of abominations (‘Bdelugma’ denotes an object of disgust, an abomination used here of the contents of the golden cup in the hand of the evil woman and of the name ascribed to her in verse 5)
and filthiness of her fornication (pp. full of obscenities; thus the world-power gives up its hostility and accepts Christianity externally; the beast gives up its God-opposed character, the woman gives up her Divine one. Christianity becomes worldly, the world becomes Christianized. The world gains, the Church loses. The beast for a time receives a deadly wound in Rev. 13:3, but will return worse than ever in Rev. 17:11-14.):
Rev. 17:5 And upon her forehead (‘Metopon’ meta with ops ‘eye’; a mark in the forehead means a public profession ; pp. A mysterious caption was written on her forehead; as harlots usually had; in contrast inscribed on the mitre on the high priest)
was a name written,
Think of Communism, which is a philosophy and a religion, which began this century. It too was a product of a society which wanted to create the perfect utopia. As we know now it failed, simply because they had left out their faith in Christ, but chose to live as they see fit. Think of democracy it is a philosophy and a religion, but it is based on World Trade, expansionism, and an attempt to create a world which in man's view will have peace and prosperity, and benefit all mankind. There is simply no man made entity that will ever bring true peace, etc., etc. to this world. You know that will not occur until the Messiah returns to take His kingdom from the beast and Satan.
We all live in the same fish bowl, breathe the same fish bowl water. But some of us have been fortunate to have been given better quality water, in a segregated section of the fish bowl.
The bottom line here is that the Gentile churches have already fallen (spiritually) into ruin and do not even know it, when their time has been fulfilled they will be in total shock.
The prophecy of Noah's three sons has been in process for many thousands of years, and directly correlates to Jesus Christs' statement in Luke 21:24 "And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled."
I think the world will go along a little longer until the world is similar to the way it was when Jesus was born. The people had given up hope, and did not think the salvation would occur, and gave into the world, and depended upon it for its existence.
Later in Revelation the true believers will be called to leave Babylon before its destruction. The message here is quite simple, become a true believer in the middle of your adversity, fear the LORD, repent your sins to Him, and hope that your faith in Him will enable you to see the sign when that call from destruction is sent.