Already we are seeing an unprecedented wave of lawlessness in Europe, America and around the world. The scope and complexity of terror networks will soon make it impossible for local law officials to monitor and quell the rising tide. The provision for martial law, which suspends individual rights, is stated in the U.S. Constitution, article 1, section 9: “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion, the public Safety may require it.”
Martial law would suspend the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the government and install the highest-ranking military officer as governor. That position, appointed by the president of the United States, is the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff.
One possible scenario for the unchallenged rise of the Antichrist would be for the president to declare martial law and install a military governor to address the problem of civil unrest and terror. Other countries experiencing the same kind of unrest would follow suit and install military governors.
The need for coordinated worldwide effort could give rise to a central command center led by one person, similar to the position that General Dwight D. Eisenhower held during World War II as the supreme Allied commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force. From this central command center, a multinational, multidisciplinary force would be directed to ensure that the world was safe and resilient against terrorism. The role of the leader could expand as countries face currency manipulation, border-control threats and cyberattacks. If the person in this position were indeed the Antichrist, he would wield such far-reaching power that he could access financial data, disrupt essential services and alter or steal classified information.
In addition to the removal of Christian influence in the world leading to an unfettered spread of lawlessness, there is another reason people might put their unbridled faith in the Antichrist, even after his promise of peace is quickly replaced by violence on a worldwide scale. Some economists believe that there is a connection between war and a good economy.
An article in the Business Insider a few years ago took a satirical look at the effect World War II had on the American economy. The author made a tongue-in-cheek suggestion that the best way to grow the economy was to start another world war. Although he was not serious about this suggestion, he argued that global war had unexpected positive results that today’s more contained conflicts fail to achieve: (Click to Article)