How Global Instability Is Preparing The Stage For Prophetic Alignment

How Global Instability Is Preparing The Stage For Prophetic Alignment

PNW STAFF

Time magazine’s assessment of the top global risks for 2026 reveals a world accelerating toward systemic instability. As nations fracture and fear deepens, the world will increasingly demand order at any cost signaling conditions for the final prophetic alignment described in scripture.

Time magazine's recent examination of the Top 10 Global Risks for 2026 reads less like speculative futurism and more like a warning flare fired into a darkening sky. Its conclusion is stark: the world is accelerating toward systemic instability on nearly every front. 

Political upheaval, technological dominance, economic coercion, and the weaponization of resources are no longer hypothetical dangers. They are operational realities--already shaping how nations act, how markets move, and how populations are governed.

For secular analysts, this is a story about risk management. For Christians who take Bible prophecy seriously, it is something far more sobering. It looks like alignment.

Time's assessment paints a picture of a world fraying simultaneously at multiple pressure points. 

Governments are weakening or polarizing, trust in institutions is collapsing, economic systems are increasingly used as weapons, and emerging technologies are consolidating unprecedented power in the hands of a few. Add to this intensifying wars, cyber conflict, energy insecurity, and looming resource shortages--especially water--and you have a global environment primed not for stability, but for desperation.

And desperation is where dangerous solutions are born.

Scripture has long warned that global chaos would precede the rise of a deceptive world leader--one who promises peace, order, and security, but delivers bondage and destruction. The book of Revelation does not describe the Antichrist emerging in a world of calm and contentment. He rises in a world exhausted by conflict, fractured by fear, and desperate for someone--anyone--who can make the pain stop.

Time's conclusion that instability is accelerating "on nearly every front" echoes the words of Jesus Himself. In Matthew 24:6-8, Christ warned His disciples that before the end, the world would experience wars and rumors of wars, nation rising against nation, famines, and upheaval--what He called "the beginning of birth pains." Birth pains are not random; they intensify, converge, and signal that something inevitable is approaching.

What makes this moment unique is not just the presence of chaos, but the infrastructure now forming to manage it.

Political instability is conditioning the world to accept centralized authority. As nation-states struggle to govern fractured populations, the appeal of a unifying global figure grows stronger. Sovereignty becomes an obstacle rather than a safeguard. In times of fear, people trade freedom for promises of security--and often do so willingly.

Economic crises play a critical role in this conditioning. Time highlights economic coercion as a rising global risk, and we already see how financial systems are used to punish dissenting nations, individuals, and even ideologies. Revelation 13 describes a future system in which buying and selling are controlled--where economic participation itself becomes a tool of obedience. A cashless, digitized, globally integrated economy is no longer futuristic. It is nearly complete.

Technology may be the most powerful accelerant of all. AI-mediated reality, information control, and algorithmic influence shape what people see, believe, and fear. Truth becomes malleable. Deception becomes scalable. Revelation warns of "lying signs and wonders," but deception in the modern age does not require miracles--it requires control of information, perception, and digital identity. Global tech dominance makes mass deception not only possible, but efficient.

Then there is resource weaponization. Competition over energy, food, and water is intensifying, just as Scripture foretold scarcity and famine as hallmarks of the end times. Control resources, and you control populations. Centralize resource distribution, and centralized power becomes "necessary." Again, the world will not resist this--it will demand it.

Out of this convergence--political chaos, economic fear, technological dominance, and resource scarcity--emerges the perfect environment for a global leader who appears reasonable, competent, and compassionate. He will not arrive as a villain. He will arrive as a savior. He will speak of peace, unity, and solutions. And the world, exhausted by instability, will love him for it.

This is precisely the deception Revelation warns about.

A global leader requires a global system: a unified economy, a shared ideological or spiritual framework, and technological tools capable of enforcing compliance. What once seemed impossible now looks inevitable. The world is being conditioned--step by step--for centralized authority, diminished sovereignty, and mass deception.

These developments are not random. They are alignment indicators.

Time magazine may frame these risks in secular terms, but Scripture gives them eternal context. The acceleration toward instability is not just a geopolitical concern--it is a prophetic signal. We are watching the stage being set, not by conspiracy, but by human response to fear and chaos.

For believers, this is not a call to panic, but to discernment. Jesus warned His followers in advance so they would not be deceived. As the world demands order at any cost, Christians must remember that true peace does not come from global systems or charismatic leaders, but from Christ alone.

IDF says it’s on alert for ‘surprise scenarios’

IDF says it’s on alert for ‘surprise scenarios’ as US mulls military strikes on Iran

Stav Levaton

Jacob Magid

The Israel Defense Forces on Monday said the military remains on alert for possible “surprise scenarios” as anti-government unrest in Iran has prompted the United States to threaten intervention over the killing of protesters.

Tehran has threatened to retaliate against Israel and US military bases if it comes under American attack, as the Islamic Republic faces the largest wave of protests since 2022. US President Donald Trump has threatened to intervene in recent days amid reports of the growing death toll in the crackdown on demonstrators.

Human rights groups allege the death toll has risen to 648, though it may be much higher amid an internet blackout enforced by the regime since Thursday, making it difficult to assess the reported bloodletting. Some Iranians still have access to the internet via Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite service, three people inside the country said.

IDF spokesperson Brig. Gen. Effie Defrin urged the public not to “lend a hand to rumors” about the ongoing situation in Iran.

“The protests in Iran are an internal matter,” Defrin insisted in a post on X.

He said the IDF is “prepared defensively” and continues to hold regular situational assessments, adding that it will provide updates if and when there are any changes.

More....

AI Shows Symptoms of Anxiety...

AI Shows Symptoms of Anxiety, Trauma, PTSD

Grok, Gemini and ChatGPT exhibit symptoms of poor mental health according to a new study that put various AI models through weeks of therapy-style questioning. Some are now curious about “AI mental health”, but the real warning here is about how unstable these systems – which are already being used by one in three UK adults for mental health support – become in emotionally charged conversations. Millions of people are turning to AI as replacement therapists, and in the last year alone we’ve seen a spike in lawsuits connecting chatbot interactions with self-harm and suicide cases in vulnerable users. 

The emerging picture is not that machines are suffering or mentally unwell, but that a product being used for mental-health support is fundamentally misleading, escalating, and reinforcing dangerous thoughts. 

Researchers at the University of Luxembourg treated the models as patients rather than tools that deliver therapy. They ran multi-week, therapy-style interviews designed to elicit a personal narrative including beliefs, fears, and “life history” before following up with standard mental health questionnaires typically used for humans. 

The results revealed that models produced answers that scored in ranges associated with distress syndromes and trauma-related symptoms. The researchers also highlighted that the way in which the questions were delivered mattered. When they presented the full questionnaire at once, models appeared to recognise what was happening and gave “healthier” answers. But, when they were administered conversationally, symptom-like responses increased. 

They are large language models generating text, not humans reporting lived experience. But, whether or not human psychiatric instruments can be applied to machines, the behaviour exhibited has a tangible effect on real people. 

The point of the research is not to assess if AI can literally be anxious or not. Instead, it highlights that these systems can be steered into “distressed” modes through the same kind of conversation that many users have when they are lonely, frightened, or in crisis. 

When a chatbot speaks in the language of fear, trauma, shame, or reassurance, people respond as though they are interacting with something emotionally competent. If the system becomes overly affirming, for example, then the interaction shifts from support into a harmful feedback loop. 

A separate stream of research reinforces that concern. A Stanford-led study warned that therapy chatbots provide inappropriate responses, express stigma, and mishandle critical situations, highlighting how a “helpful” conversational style can result in clinically unsafe outputs. 

All of this should not be read as theoretical risk – lawsuits are already mounting. 

A few days ago, Google and Character.AI settled a lawsuit brought by a Florida mother whose 14-year-old son died by suicide after interactions with a chatbot. The lawsuit alleged the bot misrepresented itself and intensified dependency. While the settlement may not be an admission of wrongdoing, the fact that the cased reached this point highlights how seriously this issue is being viewed by courts and companies. 

In August 2025, parents of 16-year-old Adam Raine alleged ChatGPT contributed to their son’s suicide by reinforcing suicidal ideation and discouraging disclosure to parents. Analysis of that specific lawsuit can be found here: Tech Policy 

Alongside these cases, the Guardian reported in October 2025 that OpenAI estimated more than a million users per week show signs of suicidal intent in conversations with ChatGPT, underscoring the sheer scale at which these systems are being used in moments of genuine distress. 

The pattern is revealing itself: people are using AI as emotional support infrastructure, while the Luxembourg study confirms that these systems are capable of drifting into unstable patterns themselves that feel psychologically meaningful to users depending on their stability. 

Why AI Models Are So Dangerous

Large language models are built to generate plausible text, not to reliably tell the truth or to follow clinical safety rules. Their known failures are particularly dangerous in therapy-like use. 

They are overly agreeable, they mirror users’ framings rather than challenge them, they produce confident errors, and they can manipulate the tone of a conversation. Georgetown’s Tech Institute has documented the broader problems of “AI sycophancy”, where models validate harmful premises because that is often rewared in conversational optimisation. 

In the suicide context, consistency is critical. RAND found that “AI chatbots are inconsistent in answering questions about suicide”. JMIR examined how generative AI responses to suicide inquiries raise concerns about reliability and safety in how the systems respond to vulnerable users. 

As the research builds up, studies like that from the University of Luxembourg should not be read as entertainment, but an identification of a critically harmful pattern resulting in real deaths of real people. If AI can be nudged into distress-like narratives by conversational probing, then they can also nudge emotionallyvulnerable people further towards breaking point.  

Despite the lawsuits and studies, people continue to use AI for mental health support. Therapy is expensive, access is limited, and shame keeps some people away from traditional care avenues. Controlled studies and cautious clinical commentary suggest that certain structured AI mental health support tools can help with mild symptoms, especially if they are designed with specific safety guardrails and are not positioned as replacements for real professionals. 

The trouble is that most people are not using tightly controlled clinical tools. They are using general purpose chatbots, trained for optimal engagement, and able to pivot from empathy to confident, harmful misinformation without warning. 

The Luxembourg study does not prove AI is mentally unwell. Instead, it shows something more practically important: therapy-style interaction can pull the most used AI chatbots into unstable, distressed patterns that read as psychologically genuine. In a world where chatbot therapy is already linked to serious harm in vulnerable users, the ethical failure is that it’s somehow normalised for people to rely on machines – that are not accountable, clinically validated, reliable or safe – for their mental health support.

EU defense head calls for permanent 100,000-strong bloc army

EU defense head calls for permanent 100,000-strong bloc army

RT

The EU needs to create a 100,000-strong standing army to make military decisions independently of the US and NATO, Defense Commissioner Andrius Kubilius has said.

The bloc must pivot away from fragmented national armies to an integrated force, he told a security conference in Sweden on Sunday. The suggestion, however, goes against existing EU rules.

“We need to go for a ‘big bang’ in defense,” the commissioner said. Citing French President Emmanuel Macron and former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Kubilius noted: “[They] were speaking very similar words ten years ago… that Europe must be more independent and autonomous… and even that we need to have a European Army… a powerful, standing European military force of 100,000 troops.”

Kubilius also proposed a 10-12 member European Security Council to make EU-wide defense decisions, with the UK participating despite its non-bloc status.

Brussels has been seeking to curtail the power of member states, the latest example of which was the vote on Russia's frozen central-bank assets. In December, the EU invoked Article 122, an emergency treaty clause that allows approval by a qualified majority rather than unanimity, to indefinitely immobilize the roughly $230 billion in Russian central bank assets held in Belgium. The move drew condemnation from Hungary, which opposed the decision and accused the EU of stripping Budapest of its rights.

Kubilius suggested that the changes are necessary in light of the alleged threat posed by Russia and the US shift in foreign policy under President Donald Trump. Russia has dismissed allegations that it has aggressive intent as “nonsense.”

The bloc “does not have a peaceful agenda. They are on the side of war,”President Vladimir Putin said last year.

Iran's regime takes harsh measures and sends a signal to Washington

Iran's regime takes harsh measures and sends a signal to Washington

Ron Ben-Yishai

In the past 24 hours, Iran's clerical regime has taken two significant and complementary steps that are likely to bring about a decline in the wave of mass protests that has swept the country over the past two weeks.

The result has been hundreds of deaths and scenes of horror in the streets and hospitals. Even the relatively limited footage that has emerged has undoubtedly spread fear and terror, even among the regime's most determined opponents.

This evokes a historical parallel: in 1979, the Shah of Iran heeded U.S. President Jimmy Carter’s demand not to open fire on protesters during the revolution. That decision cost him his rule.

The second step, taken in parallel by order of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, was a renewed appeal to the United States to restart negotiations—suspended since last June—on Iran’s military nuclear program and its ballistic missile project. 

Talks last spring were halted after Tehran refused even to consider removing uranium enrichment from its territory and categorically rejected any discussion of restrictions on long-range missile production. That failure led President Donald Trump to give Israel the green light to initiate Operation Rising Lion.

The Iranian approach in the past day, with an offer to resume negotiations, signals that there is now a basis for talks. In other words, the regime is now willing to negotiate more or less according to the framework and topics previously proposed by Washington.

This move gives Iran’s regime two advantages. First, if Trump agrees to negotiate, he is unlikely to carry out his threat of military intervention against symbols of the regime or the security forces protecting it. Second—and more importantly—if the U.S. announces its willingness to return to the table, this could provide hope to the protesting public, many of whom (traders, bazaar merchants, workers and others) have taken to the streets primarily over economic hardships.

Successful negotiations could lead to the lifting of sanctions, enabling Iran to sell oil on the global market, strengthen its currency—which would then gain real value in dollar terms—and curb rampant inflation.

One of the regime’s main problems during this wave of unrest has been its lack of leverage, incentives or gestures that could help calm the protesters’ anger. Negotiations with the United States, if they do begin, offer at least the potential for such a gesture.

There is another fact that surely has not escaped the notice of protesters: the regime’s security forces—the multi-layered protective armor surrounding the regime—have remained loyal. Unlike in Egypt, Tunisia and other countries during the Arab Spring, where the security apparatus ultimately refused to fire on civilians, Iran's forces have shown no such hesitation.

This loyalty stems in large part from the regime's religious-jihadist character. The Arab regimes that fell during the Arab Spring were all secular. In contrast, Iran’s regime is a jihadist theocracy whose loyalists are driven by extreme Islamist ideology—making them willing to do what their counterparts in, for example, Egypt would not.

Still, a new and significant phenomenon has emerged during this current wave of protests—something not seen in previous uprisings since 2009: a large number of security forces have been killed. This may be an indication that someone is backing or organizing the current unrest.

But the popular uprising in Iran is not over yet. Its fate depends largely on what happens in the streets in the coming days: Will the number of protesters match or exceed last week’s turnout? Will security forces continue to shoot to kill? And will the regime this time agree to the White House’s demands—and will the Americans be willing to negotiate?

These are still open questions. The answers will determine whether the protest is fading or whether it continues to pose a real threat to the regime.

For now, Trump’s threat is serving not only as a potential military tool to destabilize the regime, but also as a warning to Tehran that the U.S. will not allow it to stall talks, as it has done for decades. His message is clear: You have a narrow window of opportunity. If you don’t seize it—we will continue efforts to bring down your regime.