by Paul Collins & Phillip Collins ©, Feb. 27th, 2007

Part 2 of 2 | Part 1

Deep Politics and the Evangelical Establishment

CNPThe CNP should concern people, but not necessarily for the reasons that the Left present. Groups like the CNP can draw innocent Christians into the practice of deep politics. Deep politics is a term first coined by Professor Peter Dale Scott. Scott gives the following description of deep politics:

My notion of deep politics… posits that in every culture and society there are facts which tend to be suppressed collectively, because of the social and psychological costs of not doing so. Like all other observers, I too have involuntarily suppressed facts and even memories about the drug traffic that were too provocative to be retained with equanimity. (No pagination)

Quite simply, deep politics are those criminal activities that make up the everyday business of the power elite and the deep political system (i.e., those factions of the government that have been prostituted out to the elite). Bill Moyers confirmed that modern day elites practice deep politics on a 1980 broadcast of his show Bill Moyers Journal. Commenting on the warnings of David Rockefeller’s detractors, Moyers stated: “what some critics see as a vast international conspiracy, he considers a circumstance of life, and just another day’s work” (Hoar 325). Christians should find it disturbing that many CNP members, such as John K. Singlaub and Oliver North, were involved in one of the greatest modern day examples of deep politics: the Iran-Contra Scandal.

The group responsible for systematizing the means and the methods that constitute deep politics is Adam Weishaupt’s Bavarian Illuminati. The Illuminists were anything but Christian. In his writings, Weishaupt wrote:

If in order to destroy all Christianity, all religion, we have to have the sole true religion, remember that the end justifies the means, and that the wise ought to take all the means to do good which the wicked take to do evil. (Webster, World Revolution, 13)

The Illuminati’s anti-Christian beliefs may have also been expressed through the group’s founding date: May 1st, 1776. Ralph Epperson elaborates:

The reason that Weishaupt chose the First of May to found his anti-Christian religion has not been satisfactorily explained. However, there are some interesting clues as to why he might have chosen that date.

One possible explanation involves the Roman emperor Diocletian, who reigned from 284-305 A.D. After the death of Jesus, the Christian world continued to be persecuted by a string of violent Caesars of the Roman Empire. But the violence inaugurated by Diocletian surpassed them all in violence.

An edict requiring uniformity of worship was issued in 303 A.D., and the Christians resisted by refusing to pay homage to the image of the emperor. Diocletian met that resistance with specific retaliation against the Christians: they lost their public and private possessions, and their assemblies were prohibited. Their churches were torn down, and their sacred writings were destroyed. In addition, many Christians paid for their resistance with their lives, it has been estimated that the victims numbered into the hundreds of thousands.

Finally, Diocletian grew ill, and abdicated on May 1, 305 A.D. The persecution persisted, but never again approached that of the emperor Diocletian.

Is it possible that Professor Weishaupt learned about the date of this abdication and picked up the mantle laid down by Diocletian, and started the persecution of Christians again, some 1400 years later? (106-7)

By engaging in deep politics, CNP members are mimicking the anti-Christian Illuminists, whether they are aware of it or not. A good example is the Bush and Reagan Administration’s use of a secret team of covert operators to conceal its secret agenda. As Joel Bainerman points out in Crimes of a President, this method is strikingly similar to the Illuminati’s strategy of never appearing under its own name and establishing other organizations to carry out its secret agenda (307). CNP members John K. Singlaub and Oliver North were part of the secret team of covert operators carrying out the Reagan and Bush Administration’s secret agenda. Bainerman also notes that Weishaupt:

…was also successful in convincing many Christian leaders to join the order by telling them that the Illuminati was a Christian organization and that its purpose was to unify the world for the sake of Christ. (307)

This is similar to the CNP’s strategy of luring in Christians with thinly camouflaged Dominionist rhetoric. These facts should give Christians some pause. Perhaps shying away from groups like the CNP and remaining on a grass roots level better serves the cause of righteousness.

The whole Haggard scandal may prove to be a result of deep politics on the Colorado political scene. When one considers the proximity of the Haggard scandal to the November 2006 elections, the idea that the scandal is explained by the accidentalists begins to strain credulity. Haggard’s New Life Church in Colorado Springs gave six thousand dollars to the Coloradans for Marriage coalition that has proposed a constitutional amendment defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman (Simpson, no pagination). This made Haggard an enemy of Tim Gill, a gay rights activist and computer software entrepreneur. Gill’s Foundation Action Fund gave fifty-five thousand dollars to the Coloradans for Fairness Issue Committee, which is the opposition of Coloradans for Marriage (no pagination).

Gill’s foundation in Washington, the Gill Action Fund, is headed by Patrick Guerriero, who is the former leader of the Log Cabin Republicans, the gay faction of the GOP (“Gill Action Fund,” no pagination). This puts Gill in a perfect position to collect intelligence on closet homosexuals in or close to the GOP. Haggard is definitely connected to the GOP. Until the scandal, Haggard would speak to President George W. Bush or his advisors every Monday (Sharlet, “Soldiers of Christ,” no pagination). While this is only a theory, it is a possibility that must be considered.

Does the GOP have a sex problem that makes it susceptible to blackmail and manipulation? Unfortunately, the answer seems to be a resounding yes. On September 28, 2006, Rhonda Schwartz and Maddy Sauer reported on ABC News that a sixteen-year-old male former congressional page alerted Capitol Hill staffers of questionable e-mails that he had received from Congressman Mark Foley’s office (no pagination). Foley asked the boy about his age, what he wanted for his birthday, and requested a photograph of the boy (no pagination). A day later, ABC reported that it had seen the sexual explicit excerpts of the e-mails and Foley announced that he was going to resign (Ross and Sauer, no pagination).

Another example of a sexual deviant within the ranks of the GOP is none other than Cheney’s deposed chief of Staff Scooter Libby. Many Americans are familiar with Scooter Libby because of his connection to the Valerie Plame affair. What many people are not aware of is Libby’s sexually explicit writings. In 1996, Libby released The Apprentice, a book that took him more than twenty years to write (Collins, “Scooter’s Sex Shocker,” no pagination). The book is filled with homoeroticism, bestiality and incestuous themes, with an unspeakably gross passage where a ten-year-old girl is abused (“Scooter’s Sex Shocker,” no pagination).

GOP sexual deviants are, by no means, disorganized. There is a large body of evidence suggesting that there is actually a well-organized homoerotic cabal within the GOP. This cabal is also involved in satanic ritual abuse and the dirty side of the intelligence community. This revelation did not originate with a conspiracy theorist or some crank who reads too many Dan Brown novels. It came from John DeCamp, a former Nebraska Senator and decorated Vietnam War hero. While looking into the collapse of Nebraska’s Franklin Community Federal Credit Union, investigators happened upon evidence of criminal activities of the part of the credit union’s manager: Republican Party activist Lawrence E. “Larry” King Jr. According to DeCamp, Larry King led a double life:

When Larry King traveled the political circuit, he evidently had two agendas. To the public, he was the rising GOP star with the resonant baritone voice. Something else went on behind closed doors. (166)

What exactly went on behind closed doors? Drawing upon the notes of a private investigator named Gary Caradori, DeCamp examines darker events that percolated just below the surface of the 1984 GOP convention. The events in question involved the Webb foster child Kendra, the Webb children’s’ aunt Marcy, and a social worker named Joanie:

At the Dallas convention in 1984, King threw his splashy party at Southfork Ranch, remembered by me and many other delegates as an unparalleled extravaganza. According to the several victim-witnesses, he also arranged some private events during the convention. They recall being flown to Dallas, to be sexually used by convention-goers. Gary Caradori mapped the recollections of the Webb foster children in his notes of February 1990: “During this visit [the children’s aunt] Marcy informed [social worker] Joanie that [the youngest Patterson Webb sister] Kendra had told her she had been transported around the country several times, she thought to Texas and Louisiana. Marcy remembered Texas in particular, and a Republican Convention because one of the children, possibly Kendra, had a book of matches from Texas and that is how the children had known where they were at. Joanie stated that she remembered that the children had been exploited sexually in Texas, and she indicated that it was [the] feeling this activity had been occurring for several years.” (167)

DeCamp also fleshes out the allegations against King with the testimony of yet another victim-witness, Paul Bonacci:

I was later to learn from Paul Bonacci, that he was also at the famed Southfork party. He described it for me in exact detail, some seven years after the party took place. He had been here for the purpose of providing sexual favors for people Larry King wanted to accommodate, satisfy, or compromise. Paul said he was one of a troop of teenaged boys and girls, whom King had shipped to Dallas for his purposes. (167)

There are several aspects of Bonacci’s testimony that suggest that what he is saying is legitimate and true:

I have talked to Paul repeatedly about this party. I have listened to his description. Only by having been there, could someone describe the setting the way Paul did to me. Because I was there myself for the party, I am certain that Paul Bonacci was there and did not invent his story or his description of the party. This was, it happens, just one of Paul’s leads into matters surrounding Larry King and Franklin that I could personally check out and know the boy was telling the truth. Not because somebody told me he was telling the truth. Not because somebody said he passed a lie detector test on the subject. But because I was there and saw a part of it, and saw the exact same things this boy did. (167)

King was also present at a New Orleans Republican convention:

Again in 1988, attendance at Larry King’s party was virtually mandatory for any true Nebraska Republican attending the Republican National Convention, held this time in New Orleans. Most of the Nebraska delegation was transported to the party by bus. The theme of the festivities was Mardi Gras. (167)

According to DeCamp, in New Orleans, King engaged in the same nefarious activities that he been involved in at the 1984 Dallas convention:

King’s parties were designed to bring in everybody, from the innocent to the top-ranking businessmen and politicians. I personally attended the two largest parties he ever threw, as did many Republican officials. As a guest at the party, you would not know from the outer glitter, what sordid activity was going on behind the scenes. I am sure that was the character of many of Larry King’s parties, particularly the political events. Outwardly, they had the appearance of legitimacy, with prominent people in attendance, from mayors to presidents, from businessmen to congressmen. So, when people say to me, Well, I was at one of Larry King’s parties and I did not see any of this sex or drug or pedophilia stuff,’ I understand that they may be speaking with honesty and accuracy. As to what really went on, I believe they are wrong. (168)

DeCamp also speaks of King’s connections to the late Craig Spence:

King acquired contacts in Washington’s homosexual prostitution scene, one of whom was the late Craig Spence. A lobbyist and political operative, Spence maintained a call boy ring that catered to the political elite and, unlike most D.C. call boy rings, offered children to its clients. (169)

Craig Spence’s operation reached into high places, and even had connections into the murky world of intelligence. Eventually Spence’s racket became the center of media attention:

Spence’s activities made banner headlines in the Washington Times on June 29, 1989: ‘Homosexual prostitution inquiry ensnares VIP’s with Reagan, Bush.’ Spence’s access was so good, that he could arrange nighttime tours of the White House for his clients. The Times added on August 9, 1989, that Spence ‘hinted the tours were arranged by ‘top level’ persons, including Donald Gregg, national security advisor to Vice President Bush. . . .” Spence, according to friends, was also carrying out homosexual blackmail operations for the CIA. (169)

DeCamp informs the reader that investigations conducted journalists uncovered the connection between King and Spence:

According to a Washington, D.C. investigative journalist who researched the Spence ring, “The way we discovered Larry King and this Nebraska-based call boy ring, was by looking through the credit card chits of Spence’s ring, where we found King’s name.” Another investigator, with personal knowledge of the call-boy rings operating in Washington, put it this way: “Larry King and Craig Spence were business partners. Look at two companies, ‘Dream Boys’ and ‘Man to Man’, both of which operated under another service, ‘Bodies by God.'” (169)

Spence would eventually die under mysterious circumstances, but the questions persisted even after the man’s death. These questions focused on rumors that both King and Spence participated in the Iran-Contra scandal:

When Craig Spence turned up dead-a suicide, police were quick to say-in a Boston hotel room, in November 1989, it was the latest in the long string of deaths of persons linked to Iran-Contra covert operations and funding. There is evidence that Larry King had Washington business in that area as well. ‘In the 6 ½ months since federal authorities closed Franklin, rumors have persisted that money from the credit union somehow found its way to the Nicaraguan contra rebels,’ said a World-Herald article on May 21, 1989. (169)

Reporter James Allen Flanery was one of the individuals who took a closer look into the Iran-Contra aspect of the King/Spence story. After some digging, Flanery found that there was substance to the rumors. DeCamp shares Flanery’s story:

The first World-Herald reporter on the Franklin case, James Allen Flanery, apparently found more than rumors about the money-laundering. In late 1988, Flanery called Carol Stitt to discuss what he had learned. Their conversation is related in a February 21, 1989 report by Jerry Lowe: “Carol’s notes also have a reference to Larry King running guns and money into Nicaragua . . . . Carol’s notes on Dec. 21, 1988 reflect that she talked with Flanery and in addition to the Nicaraguan info, he was also now talking about CIA involvement and provided info that yesterday (Dec. 20) the FBI quit cooperating with him . . . .Carol’s notes next jump to Feb.6, 1989, where she talked on the phone with Flanery and Flanery told her that the appropriate people didn’t want to believe any of this and who was ever going to prosecute it. Apparently Flanery told Carol he was close to resigning and the reasons he didn’t think anyone wanted to do anything was because of the possibility of a White House connection, the connections to a number of big people, and he fact that the investigators wanted badly to confine this all to the money. Also many white people made Larry King [who was African-American], he did not happen on his own.” (170)

Apparently, Flanery’s snooping into Franklin caught the attention of people who did not want the story told. Pressure began to be applied on Flanery to convince him to leave the Franklin story alone:

Apparently Flanery told Carol he was uncomfortable on the phone, his editor was distressed and things he had written were continually edited, he wanted to his byline off the article printed the 9th among other things . . . Flanery also expressed concern to Carol that if he didn’t get off this story he worried about being compromised.”

The pressure and intimidation began to take a heavy toll on Flanery. This campaign of scare-tactics had the desired effect:

Soon Flanery was off the Franklin case, which continued for months to be the major news lead in Nebraska, and went to the University of Kansas on Sabbatical. When he returned a year later, Flanery no longer wrote about Franklin. (170)

During the legislative Franklin probe, DeCamp was contacted by an insider at National Credit:

Squelching interest in an Iran-Contra connection to Franklin was also a topic of the hour, in that phone call I received from National Credit Union administration official Fenner, back in the early months of the legislative Franklin probe. ‘Why would the head of the NCUA be wanting to talk to me?’ I wondered out loud, when my secretary said that Fenner was on the line. The man on the other end of the phone said he knew I was a close friend of former CIA head Bill Colby, and that I also was Senator Loran Schmit’s personal attorney. He quickly came to his point. (170-171)

During the conversation, Fenner tried to steer DeCamp clear of any connection of Franklin to Iran-Contra:

“I know there are a lot of rumors, that Franklin was being used as a front for laundering money for the Contras and that a lot of the money that is missing from Franklin actually went to finance the Contras.” I acknowledged that I had heard such talk, and told, him, “I myself am one of those who wonder, if that is not a real possibility, in light of the way things have been shaking out on the Contra scandal.” Fenner then gave me a flood of details on the secret Franklin accounts, and where the missing money supposedly went. No destinations linked with Iran-Contra were mentioned. (171)

While Fenner was evaded questions concerning connections between Franklin and Iran-Contra, he did make a startling admission that suggests the existence of a homoerotic cabal. This cabal is intimately tied to the Franklin affair:

“So tell me,” I said, “just what is at the bottom of it? If it is not laundered money involved in the Iran-Contra scandal, what the blazes is it? And how could Larry King get away with this, without you or somebody else knowing what was going on? Looks to me as if he had to have one heck of a lot powerful political protection at the highest levels.” “Homosexuals,” Fenner said, “Franklin financed the biggest group of homosexuals any state has ever seen. A lot of awfully powerful and prominent personalities involved. But probably not anything you can do anything about.” (171)

Does this organized network of sexual deviants connect in any way to the CNP? If the Franklin scandal can be tied to the Iran-Contra affair, then the name of CNP member Ollie North will invariably resurface. After all, North was the chief coordinator of the Iran-Contra operation. Evidence that this may be the case comes from Rusty Nelson, King’s personal photographer. Nelson testified on February 5, 1999 at the U.S. District Court in Lincoln, Nebraska in a civil action known as Bonacci v. Lawrence E. King (Steinberg, no pagination). This case ended with the Judge Warren K. Urbom ordering King to pay Bonacci $1 million in damages (no pagination). Nelson described to a journalist for the LaRouche publication Executive Intelligence Review an incident that linked King to Lt. Col. Michael Aquino while he was still on active reserve duty. This incident also ties Oliver North to Aquino and King. Jeffrey Steinberg elaborates:

Some time in the late 1980s, Nelson was with King at a posh hotel in downtown Minneapolis, when he personally saw King turn over a suitcase full of cash and bearer-bonds to “the Colonel,” whom he later positively identified as Aquino. According to Nelson, King told him that the suitcase of cash and bonds was earmarked for the Nicaraguan Contras, and that “the Colonel” was part of the covert Contra support apparatus, otherwise associated with Lt. Col. Oliver North, Vice President George Bush, and the “secret parallel government” that they ran from the White House. (No pagination)

Who exactly is Michael Aquino? Aquino was a high ranking Army officer who joined LaVey’s Church of Satan in 1969 (Goldston, no pagination). In 1975, Aquino started his own satanic church, the Temple of Set (no pagination). Aquino’s wife, Lilith, was a priestess in the temple’s Order of the Vampyre (no pagination). It seems that the Temple of Set had a rather elaborate system at the Presidio in San Francisco. Linda Goldston elaborates:

Inside a concrete bunker behind the Military Intelligence Building at the Presidio, the words “Prince of Darkness” are painted boldly in red on one wall. Used decades ago to house artillery guns, the reinforced concrete batteries appear to have been converted to something like ritual chambers. Emblazoned next to the “Prince of Darkness” is the word “Die,” and what looks like a list of names, painted in red, that have been crossed out with heavy black paint. One wall is covered with the numerals 666, a sign of the devil, and occult drawings. A clearing in the center of the concrete floor, where the ground is exposed, is filled with refuse and partly burned logs. On the front wall beneath the window that faces the Military Intelligence Building is a huge pentagram inside a circle. In the rear, where sunlight gives way to darkness, white and black candle drippings sit atop a dome shaped recession in the wall, apparently a crude altar. Incense sticks lie half burned to the side.

At another battery farther up Lincoln Boulevard, a large drawing of Satan, with red eyes and horns appears on an outside concrete wall. Doors to the battery are secured shut; there are no windows to climb though. No entry is possible here. It would be easy to dismiss the satanic graffiti as the pranks of adolescents, taking advantage of the isolated bunkers to play new versions of “Dungeons and Dragons.” But events in the Presidio case suggested something more sinister could have been involved. (No pagination)

What sort of sinister activity related to satanism was taking place at the Presidio? The testimony of a former base MP named Albanoski provides some clarity:

Satanic goings-on are not new to the Presidio. In the early 1980’s, when he was an MP at the Presidio, Albanoski recalls, “We got a call from the Portola MacArthur housing area. One person reported a man dressed in black holding a little girl’s hand running toward the park. Another call came in saying they heard screams near the creek.”

The search led to a gardener’s shack at Julius Kahn Park, a strip of city-owned playground adjacent to the Presidio, behind the housing area. “We heard noises coming from inside,” Albanoski recalls. “We kicked the door open and here’s this nice little bedroom. In a corner was a mannequin with a gun aimed at the door. On the left side there was a bunk against the wall. There was a pentagram on the floor, a huge one. There were dolls’ heads all over the ceiling, just off-the-wall stuff.” Music was blaring from a radio.

Albanoski and another MP were given approval to set up surveillance of the shack. After a while, the investigation was called off. “We were sitting there, we’ve got a cult on the Presidio of San Francisco and nobody cares about it,” Albanoski says. “We were told by the provost marshall to just forget about it”. (No pagination)

Apparently, the Temple of Set has Nazi overtones. During a NATO tour in 1982, Aquino “performed a satanic ritual in the Westphalian castle that had been used as an occult sanctuary by Heinrich Himmler’s SS elite in Nazi Germany” (no pagination). Rusty Nelson’s testimony linking Aquino to pedophile Larry King seems to suggest that the Temple may also have been involved in an organized pedophile ring. Evidence that this was the case came in 1987. When their three year old daughter began having nightmares and wetting herself when frightened, Larry and Michelle Adams-Thompson sought the help of a therapist at Letterman Army Medical Center (no pagination). During therapy, the girl began to speak about being molested by Gary Hambright, a baptist minister and the man who taught the girl’s class at the Presidio Day Care Center (no pagination). The girl also claimed that a man named “Mikey” and a woman named “Shamby” were involved in the abuse (no pagination). “Mikey” and “Shamby” remained unidentified until Aug 12, 1987. Goldston elaborates:

On Aug. 12, 1987, the Adams-Thompsons were shopping at the PX at the Presidio. Suddenly the girl ran to Larry Adams-Thompson and clutched his leg. He looked up and saw a man whom he knew as Lt Col. Michael Aquino.

“Yes, that’s Mikey,” the 3-year-old told Adams-Thompson. After being taken outside, the girl added, “he’s a bad man and I’m afraid.” As they were leaving the parking lot, the Adams-Thompsons saw Aquino’s wife, Lilith. Larry asked the child if she knew the woman.

“Yes, that’s Shamby,” the girl said. (No pagination)

After this incident, the FBI were called by the family (no pagination). When interviewed by authorities, the girl positively identified Hambright as one of her victimizers in a photo line-up (no pagination). The girl then explained that Hambright had transported her from the Day Care Center to the home of Mikey and Shamby (no pagination). There, she was abused and photographs were taken of her (no pagination). Goldston continues:

The investigators drove her to Leavenworth Street in San Francisco. The girl was asked to identify any of the houses that she had been to before. While walking past 2430 Leavenworth, the girl identified the house as the one where she met “Mikey” and “Shamby.” It was the Aquinos’ house. A search warrant was served on the Aquino home on Aug. 14. In attendance were agents from the FBI and the San Francisco Police. Because the abuse allegedly occurred on city property, it was to be a city case.

Among the items seized were video tapes, cassette tapes, notebooks with names and addresses, two photo albums one paper plate and two plastic gloves from the kitchen garbage, four plastic cases of negatives and 29 photos of costumes and masks. (No pagination)

No formal charges were ever brought against Aquino. It makes little sense that Aquino, a Satanist and possible pedophile, would be part of “Christian” Oliver North’s Contra support apparatus. Perhaps former CIA pilot Gary Eitel hit the nail on the head with his remark about North: “Going to church doesn’t make you a Christian, anymore than going to a car wash makes you a car.” The sincerity of Ollie’s Christianity aside, his possible link to Aquino is one connection between the CNP and sexual deviant rings.

One possible link between the CNP and organized sexual deviants that is closer to Haggard’s backyard lies with his close friend and CNP member James Dobson’s promotion of Joseph Nicolosi’s reparative therapy. This controversial psychotherapy is supposed to help homosexuals rid themselves of their gay desires. To prevent homosexuality in young boys, Nicolosi recommends that a father “even take his son with him into the shower, where the boy cannot help but notice that Dad has a penis, just like his, only bigger” (no pagination). This is a very bizarre method of preventing a young boy from becoming sexually confused, to say the least. It is questionable whether reparative therapy is effective or not. So why is it still embraced by people in the Evangelical establishment. Is reparative therapy used to cure young boys, or seduce them?

Another possible tie comes through Mark Foley and his Scientology connections. On May 24, 2003, Foley attended a brunch held in his honor at Fort Harrison’s Crystal Ballroom. The event was organized by the Flag Land Base of the Church of Scientology (“Cached webpage from Flag Service Org website showing Mark Foley accepting awards at special dinner along with Mary Story of the Office of Special Affairs,” no pagination). At this event, Foley received leather-bound copies of two major Scientology works, Dianetics and The Way to Happiness (no pagination). Wayne Garcia has also claimed to have seen Foley at a Scientology event at the Celebrity Center in Los Angeles (Garcia, no pagination). After the Foley scandal broke, Scientology scrubbed Foley from their site (Bercovici, no pagination). CNP members Gary Bauer, Beverly LaHaye, Carol Steinke, and Paul Weyrich are all connected to Scientology (“CNP and Scientology,” no pagination). LaHaye and Steinke are signatories of the Scientology Pledge (no pagination). Bauer’s Family Research Council is listed at Hubbard’s CCHR web page (no pagination). Weyrich’s former group American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is funded by Scientology (no pagination).

According to investigative journalist Tom Flocco, a retired intelligence agency official with multiple Capitol Hill sources told him that Mark Foley was “just the tip of the iceberg” (no pagination). Flocco reported that federal agents linked Foley to GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff and GOP reporter/former male prostitute Jeff Gannon (no pagination). Flocco’s intelligence insider informed him that Abramoff “operated the sex / spy ring at the Watergate, Ritz-Carlton and Sheraton hotels in Washington, DC” (no pagination). The insider also told Flocco that Gannon and Abramoff acted as “facilitators for the poker parties and an elaborate prostitution ring of pedophiles and extortion-friendly homosexuals-in-the-closet serving elements of the Republican leadership” (no pagination). If Flocco’s allegations are true and his sources are correct, this is yet another tie to the CNP. Abramoff has been a member of the CNP (“Council for National Policy: Selected Member Biographies,” no pagination). Abramoff has collaborated with other CNP members, one being Grover Norquist. In June 2006, the Senate Indian Affairs Committee released an investigative report charging that CNP member Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform:

served as a “conduit” for funds that flowed from Abramoff’s clients to surreptitiously finance grass-roots lobbying campaigns. As the money passed through, Norquist’s organization kept a small cut, e-mails show. (Schmidt and Grimaldi, no pagination)

Norquist’s Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy was also involved in Abramoff’s operations. Susan Schmidt and James V. Grimaldi elaborates:

A second group Norquist was involved with, the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, received about $500,000 in Abramoff client funds; the council’s president has told Senate investigators that Abramoff often asked her to lobby a senior Interior Department official on his behalf. The committee report said the Justice Department should further investigate the organization’s dealings with the department and its former deputy secretary, J. Steven Griles. (no pagination)

Norquist and Abramoff have been very close friends since they were leaders of the College Republicans (no pagination). CNP members Jesse Helms and Alan Keyes also worked with Abramoff’s International Freedom Foundation which was “a Washington-based organization in part clandestinely funded by the South African military to prop up overseas support for apartheid” (Ballenger, no pagination). Abramoff also arranged for CNP member Tom DeLay to make a trip to the island of Saipan over the New Years holiday in 1997 (Ross, no pagination). DeLay went on at least three other free trips that were connected to Abramoff (no pagination). These include a trip to Moscow in 1997, a trip to London and Scotland in 2000, and a trip to South Korea in 2001 (no pagination). At one time, CNP member Ralph Reed acted as an unpaid intern for Abramoff (“Jack Abramoff,” no pagination). Reed was invited to sleep on Abramoff’s couch and, in his book Active Faith, Reed even claims that Abramoff introduced him to his future wife (no pagination). Reed’s marketing company was also involved in Abramoff’s lobbying efforts (no pagination).This places the CNP very close to GOP deviant sex rings, if Flocco’s allegations concerning Abramoff prove to be true and his intelligence source is legitimate.

Flocco’s allegations are supported by the fact that former CNP member Abramoff’s lobbying team was involved in preparing Republican Representative Ralph Hall’s statements on the House floor. These statements questioned the credibility of a teenage girl who claimed to be a victim of the sex trade in the Northern Marianas Islands (Kiel, no pagination). CNP member DeLay was Abramoff’s closest Congressional ally when it came to the Marianas issue, and Hall took money from DeLay when he was still a democrat (no pagination). CNP member Diana Weyrich is also a former staff assistant to Ralph Hall (“Council for National Policy: Selected Member Biographies,” no pagination). What do these individuals with CNP ties want to keep people from knowing about the Marianas sex slave trade?

Another compelling tie between the CNP and GOP deviant sex rings is Covenant House. According to DeCamp, Covenant House was used to acquire children for pedophilia. The former Nebraska senator provides the following description:

Lauded by the Reagan and Bush Administrations as a showcase for the privatization of social service, Covenant House had expanded into Guatemala as a gateway to South America. According to intelligence community sources, the purpose was procurement of children from South America for exploitation in a pedophile ring. The flagship Guatemalan mission of Covenant House was launched by a former business partner of Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza, Roberto Alejos Arzu, who had ties to the CIA, according to the Village Voice of Feb. 20, 1990. The Voice quoted Jean-Marie Simon, author of Guatemala: Eternal, Spring, Eternal Tyranny: “It’s like having Idi Amin on the board of Amnesty International.” (180)

A major source of money for Covenant House has been Robert Macauley, the founder of Americares (180). CNP member J. Peter Grace helped found Americares (Collins, “Order of Malta valuable to church in Zaire,” no pagination). CNP member Pat Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network is one of Americares’ largest contributors (no pagination). In February of 1989, when Covenant House’s director, Father Bruce Ritter, was accused to of having molested children at the youth organization, the powerful PR firm Hill and Knowlton dispatched Charles Perkins to help with Covenant House’s public relations dilemma (DeCamp 180). Perkins rushed from New York and gave aid to Covenant House for a fraction of Hill and Knowlton’s regular fee (180).

In 1986, one the Hill and Knowlton’s former employees, Robert Keith Gray, became chairman and CEO of the PR giant after his own firm was bought out by Hill and Knowlton (178). According to DeCamp, Gray “is also reportedly a specialist in homosexual blackmail operations for the CIA” (178). DeCamp also reveals Gray’s relationship with two major covert operators, Edwin Wilson and Frank Terpil. DeCamp states:

During the Watergate era, Robert Keith Gray served on the board of Consultants International, founded by CIA agent Edwin Wilson. When Wilson and fellow agent Frank Terpil got caught running guns abroad, Gray tried to deny his connection with Wilson. “Yet ten years before,” according to Peter Maas’ book Manhunt, “in a top secret Navy review of Wilson’s intelligence career, Gray described Wilson as a person of ‘unqualified trust,’ with whom he’d been in contact ‘professionally two or three times a month’ since 1963.'” (179)

Gray’s connection to Wilson is significant. Fugitive ex-CIA officer Frank Terpil has claimed that sexual blackmailing operations directed by the CIA were intensive in Washington during the Watergate era (DeCamp 179). Terpil also asserts that his former partner, Ed Wilson, was coordinating one of these sexual blackmail operations (179). In a letter to author Jim Hougan, Terpil revealed Wilson’s modus operandi:

“Historically, one of Wilson’s Agency jobs was to subvert members of both houses [of Congress] by any means necessary…. Certain people could be easily coerced by living out their sexual fantasies in the flesh…. A remembrance of these occasions [was] permanently recorded via selected cameras…. The technicians in charge of filming… [were TSD [Technical Services Division of the CIA]. The unwitting porno stars advanced in their political careers, some of [whom] may still be in office.” (Qtd. in DeCamp 179)

DeCamp asserts that the Wilson/Terpil/Gray operations were merely continuations of sexual blackmail operations ran by the infamous Roy Cohn:

Gray’s associate Wilson was apparently continuing the work of a reported collaborator of Gray from the 1950’s-McCarthy committee counsel Roy Cohn, now dead of AIDS. According to the former head of the vice squad for one of America’s biggest cities, “Cohn’s job was to run the little boys. Say you had an admiral, a general, a congressman, who did not want to go along with the program. Cohn’s job was to set them up, then they would go along. Cohn told me that himself.” The first president of Tong Sun Park’s George Town Club, where Wilson’s sexual blackmail operations were reportedly run, was Robert Keith Gray. (179-80)

Cohn’s sexual blackmail operation may have even included the cult that Maury Terry alleges was behind the Son of Sam killings. Terry conducted a meticulous investigation into the Son of Sam murders an gathered compelling evidence that David Berkowitz was only one participant in what was, in fact, a string of cult killings. The cult behind these crimes was the Process Church of the Final Judgement. According to David Berkowitz, the Process provided children for sex at parties held by wealthy people in Westchester, Manhattan, Connecticut, and Long Island (Terry 534). Berkowitz informed Terry that one of these parties were held at Cohn’s house in Connecticut and Berkowitz even got to meet the infamous McCarthy aide during the party (534).

Cohn is important because of his connection to the CNP. After the mysterious death of Larry MacDonald, Cohn ran Western Goals Foundation for a short time (“Western Goals Foundation,” no pagination). Recall that CNP member John Singlaub was a joint-founder of Western Goals (no pagination). CNP member J Peter Grace had the CNP’s major funder, Roger Milliken, on the board of Directors of his W.R. and Grace Company (no pagination). One of Western Goals’ major contributors, Nelson Bunker Hunt, was a CNP member (no pagination). Two other CNP members, Daniel Graham and Mildred Jefferson, were also involved in Western Goals (no pagination). It is also possible the former CNP member Abramoff’s sex/blackmail ring is yet another continuation of the Cohn/Wilson operation.

Is the CNP some monolithic conspiracy of sexual deviants? Of course not. However, it does seem to be part of a network where a sexually deviant subculture has flourished hiding under a cloak of “family values.” Furthermore, given these sexual deviants’ intelligence connections, it is not out of line to contend that the CNP is merely part of the deep political system. There is a very real risk that involvement in the CNP could lead genuine Christians away from Jesus and into the practice of deep politics.

Manufacturing Messiahs: Engineering Another Christ

Of course, the engineering of a new religion stipulates the engineering of a new Messiah. The religious engineers of Dominionism are acutely aware of this necessity. Thus, they have re-sculpted Jesus Christ according to somewhat Jacobin designs. The Dominionist conceives a Jesus that more readily conforms to his or her hegemonic aspirations. Suddenly, Jesus becomes a political dissident, a radical revolutionary, and a sociopolitical Utopian. While some Dominionists still profess a faith in Christ as their personal Savior, their postmillennial eschatology portrays the Second Coming as some sort of political coup. Thus, the Dominionist subordinates the spirit to the flesh and, in so doing, transforms Jesus into the equivalent of a Lenin or a Marx.

Such religious engineering is nothing new. For many years, occult secret societies have proffered their own “esoteric Christ.” Adam Weishaupt’s infamous Illuminati, which provided a working model for almost all contemporary subversive socialist groups, is an exemplary case in point. The Illuminist conception of Christ was purely socialistic in character. Weishaupt himself claimed that ” if Jesus preaches contempt of riches, He wishes to teach us the reasonable use of them and prepare for the community of goods introduced by Him” (Webster, Secret Societies and Subversive Movements, no pagination). This sounds more like Marxism made flesh, not the Word made flesh. Of course, all of the stated goals of the Illuminati virtually mirrored the objectives presented in the Communist Manifesto. Numerous researchers have demonstrated the ideological continuum binding Illuminism and communism. Reiterating their arguments is not the purpose of this article. What is important to understand is that the religious engineering projects of subversive organizations like the Illuminati and its communist progenies paved the way for Dominionism’s re-conceptualization of Jesus Christ.

Like the Dominionist Christ, the Illuminist Christ was a totally secular Messiah. His mission was a political one, not a spiritual one. In regards to Jesus, Weishaupt states:

The secret preserved through the Disciplinam Arcani, and the aim appearing through all His words and deeds, is to give back to men their original liberty and equality. . . . Now one can understand how far Jesus was the Redeemer and Saviour of the world. (Webster, Secret Societies and Subversive Movements, no pagination)

In keeping with his esoteric heritage, Weishaupt’s Christ was an obscurantist and a secret teacher of older occult doctrines:

No one . . . has so cleverly concealed the high meaning of His teaching, and no one finally has so surely and easily directed men on to the path of freedom as our great master Jesus of Nazareth. This secret meaning and natural consequence of His teaching He hid completely, for Jesus had a secret doctrine, as we see in more than one place of the Scriptures. (Webster, Secret Societies and Subversive Movements, no pagination)

As a product of the Enlightenment, the Illuminati exhibited the same sort of scientism that was characteristic of that period. In accordance with their strident scientific materialism, Weishaupt and his fellow Illuminists presented a Christ that was bereft of any supernatural qualities. The Illuminist Christ was a technocratic Avatar that preached a Gnostic gospel of self-salvation. This doctrine of self-salvation held aloft human reason and the cognitive powers of man as the new incarnation of revelatory knowledge, a scientistic version of gnosis so-to-speak. John Robison explains:

Jesus Christ is represented as the enemy of superstitious observances, and the assertor of the Empire of Reason and of Brotherly love, and his death and memory as dear to mankind. This evidently paves the way for Weishaupt’s Christianity. (No pagination)

Weishaupt’s Illuminist colleague, Baron von Knigge, reiterates this scientistic portrait of Jesus:

“Jesus Christ established no new Religion; he would only set Religion and Reason in their ancient rights. For this purpose he would unite men in a common bond. He would fit them for this by spreading a just morality, by enlightening the understanding, and by assisting the mind to shake off all prejudices. He would teach all men, in the first place, to govern themselves. Rulers would then be needless, and equality and liberty would take place without any revolution, by the natural and gentle operation of reason and expediency. This great Teacher allows himself to explain every part of the Bible in conformity to these purposes; and he forbids all wrangling among his scholars, because every man may there find a reasonable application to his peculiar doctrines. Let this be true or false, it does not signify. This was a simple Religion, and it was so far inspired; but the minds of his hearers were not fitted for receiving these doctrines. I told you, says he, but you could not bear it. Many therefore were called, but few were chosen.” (Qutd. In Robison, no pagination)

Clearly, the Illuminist Christ was antithetical to the Biblical Christ. Yet, because of the Illuminati’s ostensibly Christian rhetoric, sincere Believers were lured into membership. Commenting on the Illuminati’s Christian veneer, Baron von Knigge states:

“it will appear that we are the only true Christians. We shall now be in a condition to say a few words to Priests and Princes. I have so contrived things, that I would admit even Popes and Kings, after the trials which I have prefixed; and they would be glad to be of the Order.” (Qutd. In Robison, no pagination)

Of course, the Illuminati had a hotly debated, yet historically documented relationship with Freemasonry. Like the Illuminati, the Lodge promoted its own Masonic Christ. Thirty-third degree Mason Albert Pike states:

Behold the object, the end, the result, of the great speculation and logomachies of antiquity; the ultimate annihilation of evil, and restoration of Man to his first estate, by a Redeemer, a Masayah, a Christos, the incarnate Word, Reason, or Power of Diety. (274)

The astute reader will immediately notice the capital M in “Man,” connoting humanity’s intrinsic divinity. Being a god was humanity’s “first estate.” Thus, the Masonic messiah is not the transcendent Creator incarnated as Jesus Christ. Instead, Masonry posits that the messiah is within Man himself. According to Masonic doctrine, humanity’s cognizance of its innate divinity is integral to achieving apotheosis. Pike recapitulates:

Thus self-consciousness leads us to consciousness of God, and at last to consciousness of an infinite God. That is the highest evidence of our own existence and it is the highest evidence of His. (709)

As for the early Christians who believed that Jesus was the transcendent God clothed in flesh, Pike derisively portrays them as superstitious simpletons:

The dunces who led primitive Christianity astray, by substituting faith for science, reverie for experience, the fantastic for the reality; and the inquisitors who for so many ages waged against Magism a war of extermination, have succeeded in shrouding in darkness the ancient discoveries of the human mind; so that we now grope in the dark to find again the key of the phenomena of nature. (732)

Pike’s reprimand concerning Christianity’s substitution of faith for science betrays Masonry’s scientistic proclivities. Earlier in human history, such scientistic belief was less powerful. Yet, the Enlightenment edified this anthropocentric religion and, eventually, it even infected Christian thought. This influence is made evident by the doctrine of cessationism. Cessationism promotes a “rationalistic, Enlightenment-era, unbiblical notion of ‘miracles'” (“Cessationism,” no pagination). Cessationism rejects the miraculous and supernatural elements of Christianity, contending that such spiritual gifts were reserved for the Church’s distant past (no pagination). John MacArthur is one of the foremost evangelists of this spiritually dead and eviscerated “gospel” (no pagination). Essentially, cessationism offers a Christianity with only enough spiritual elements to marginally placate the intrinsic human need for God and all of the rationalism necessary to keep one from having to make any uncomfortable “leaps of faith.” Bear in mind that God is a supra-rational entity and, as such, has never required the affirmation of man’s finite rational mind.

A strand of cessationist thought runs through Dominionism’s postmillennial eschatology. In cessationism, the Believer is presented with a deistic Christianity. Either unwilling to or incapable of exercising His powers in the affairs of man, the cessationist God is tantamount to an absentee landlord. Likewise, the Dominionist Christ is either unwilling to or incapable of establishing His own kingdom. Thus, it is the Dominionist’s duty to make “His Kingdom come.” In true neo-Gnostic fashion, the Dominionist must redirect his or her complete attention towards the ontological plane of the physical universe. After all, the corrupted creation must be transformed before the Dominionist Christ can reappear. Dominionism merely reiaterates the dictum of communism, fascism, and other strains of secular Gnosticism: “We must save ourselves!”

It is true that some Dominionists are not purely cessationists. In fact, some Dominionists are also charismatics. According to Sarah Leslie, the Dominionist recruitment strategy operates in a “dialectical fashion,” targeting both charismatics and more traditional denominations (no pagination). However, the postmillenial eschatology of Dominionism exhibits the same sort of deistic overtones that are prevalent within cessationism. Both the Dominionist and the cessationist proffer an absentee landlord as God. The logical conclusion of such deistic thinking is that the Lord will not move. Instead, the hand of man must move. Such a conclusion is not too far from the contentions of earlier sociopolitical Utopians. Many sociopolitical Utopians were either deists or outright atheists. Convinced that God was either an incomprehensible irrelevancy or just plain fantasy, these political radicals promoted a “heaven” of their own. That “heaven” could only be obtained through revolution. In this sense, Dominionism is merely a continuation of the older secular Gnostic crusades for a novus ordo seclorum.

Religious engineering within the Christian community continues. The vision of a new Christ who will affirm the neo-Gnostic suppositions of sociopolitical Utopians has resulted in the emergence of several pseudo-Christian cults. Jeffrey Sharlet infiltrated one such group, ominously named the Family (a shared appellation with the Charles Manson cult). In an article in Harper’s magazine, Sharlet revealed some disturbing aspects of this group. While the group consistently invokes the name of Jesus, Christian is “a term they deride as too narrow for the world they are building in Christ’s honor. . .” (“Jesus Plus Nothing,” 53). Sharlet elaborates:

. . .the Family reject the label “Christian.” Their faith and their practice seemed closer to a perverted sort of Buddhism, their God outside “the truth,” their Christ everywhere and nowhere at once, His commands phrased as questions, His will as simple to divine as one’s own desires. And what the Family desired. . .was power, worldly power, with which Christ’s kingdom can be built. . .(“Jesus Plus Nothing,” 63)

It is obvious that the Family’s notion of Christ’s kingdom breaks drastically with the Biblical concept. The concept of an Eschaton within this ontological plane is inherently Gnostic. In fact, Family members consistently reiterate the neo- Gnostic mandate to immanentize the Eschaton. David Coe, son of the cult’s current leader, tells other members that they “are here to learn how to rule the world” (59). Such statements are redolent of Gnostic thinking. Likewise, the Christ being sculpted by the Family’s religious engineers is inherently Gnostic. No longer is He the Savior and Redeemer of humanity. Instead, He is a nebulous and ambiguous icon whose features are being re-configured according to the template of sociopolitical Utopianism.

To understand the Family’s conception of Christ’s kingdom, one must examine its founder, Abraham Vereide. Sharlet introduces this enigmatic character:

The Family was founded in April 1935 by Abraham Vereide, a Norwegian immigrant who made his living as a traveling preacher. One night, while lying in bed fretting about socialists, Wobblies, and a Swedish Communist who, he was sure, planned to bring Seattle under the control of Moscow, Vereide received a visitation: a voice, and a light in the dark, bright and blinding. (“Jesus Plus Nothing,” 61)

Mimicking Joseph Smith, Vereide attributed his ideas to a divine encounter. These ideas would be presented under an anticommunist label, obviously manipulating justifiable fears of the communist threat to civilization. However, Vereide’s goal could not be described as Christian. Sharlet writes: “In 1944, Vereide has foreseen what he called ‘the new world order'” (“Jesus Plus Nothing,” 61). The “new world order” is a term originating with and tossed about in several elitist circles seeking to establish some form of world government. It is a catch phrase for a world system best described by Donald McAlvany, himself a CNP member:

A world government, by its highly centralized nature, would be socialistic; would be accompanied by redistribution of wealth; strict regimentation; and would incorporate severe limitations on freedom of movement, freedom of worship, private property rights, free speech, the right to publish, and other basic freedoms. (287)

For many Christians, this system would resemble the kingdom of antichrist described in the thirteenth chapter of the Book of Revelation. However, many are duped by the group’s “Christian” exterior. Its ranks include the influential and powerful:

The Family is, in its own words, an “invisible” association, though its membership has always consisted mostly of public men. Senators Don Nickles (R., Okla.), Charles Grassley (R., Iowa), Pete Domenici (R., N. Mex.), John Ensign (R., Nev.), James Inhofe (R. Okla.), Bill Nelson (D., Fla.), and Conrad Burns (R., Mont.) are referred to as “members,” as are Representatives Jim DeMint (R., S.C.), Frank Wolf (R., Va.), Joseph Pitts (R., Pa.), Zach Wamp (R., Tenn.), and Bart Stupak (D., Mich.). (Sharlet 54)

The Family has also formed prayer groups that have given them access to the halls of power:

Regular prayer groups have met in the Pentagon and at the Department of Defense, and the Family has traditionally fostered strong ties with businessmen in the oil and aerospace industries. (Sharlet, “Jesus Plus One,” 54)

Members of the controlled conservative movement seem to make up the Family’s unsuspecting prey. It is the organization behind the congressional sponsored National Prayer Breakfast held every February in Washington D.C. (Sharlet , “Jesus Plus Nothing,” 54). Sharlet continues:

. . .the breakfast is regarded by the Family as merely a tool in a larger purpose: to recruit the powerful attendees into smaller, more frequent prayer meetings, where they can “meet Jesus man to man.” (“Jesus Plus Nothing,” 54)

The Jesus encountered by the Family’s new recruits is hardly the Jesus one reads about in Scripture. The religious engineering within these neo-Gnostic circles continues. At the risk of sounding slightly alarmist, the results are becoming increasingly prophetic in nature. Reverend Sun Myung Moon, who is connected to the CNP through Gary Bauer, Jerry Falwell, the LaHayes, and others, is one case in point. As was previously mentioned, Moon claimed that Jesus’ mission was an utter failure. However, Moon has not allowed this messianic void to be left empty. In Christ’s place, Moon has presented a substitute… himself. Washington Post journalists Charles Babington and Alan Cooperman elaborate:

At the March 23 ceremony in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Rep. Danny K. Davis (D-Ill.) wore white gloves and carried a pillow holding an ornate crown that was placed on Moon’s head. The Korean-born businessman and religious leader then delivered a long speech saying he was “sent to Earth . . . to save the world’s six billion people. . . . Emperors, kings and presidents . . . have declared to all Heaven and Earth that Reverend Sun Myung Moon is none other than humanity’s Savior, Messiah, Returning Lord and True Parent.” (No pagination)

According to Moon, Jesus is no longer the judge of both the living and the dead. In addition to being humanity’s Savior, Moon purports to be the Advocate for the “spirit world” as well. In fact, Moon boasts that his message has already saved many of those who are dead, including some of history’s most notorious totalitarians. Babington and Cooperman explain:

Moon has claimed to have spoken in “the spirit world” with all deceased U.S. presidents, Jesus, Moses, Mohammed and others. At the March 23 event, he said: “The founders of five great religions and many other leaders in the spirit world, including even Communist leaders such as Marx and Lenin . . . and dictators such as Hitler and Stalin, have found strength in my teachings, mended their ways and been reborn as new persons.” (No pagination)

Moon’s claims are vintage Gnostic. According to the Gnostic myth, The Hypostasis of the Archons, Jesus Christ was little more than a mere “type” of a coming “perfect man” (Raschke 27). In this revisionist context, Jesus is only a “teacher and an exemplar, to show others the path to illumination,” thus paving the way for the “Gnostic adept” (27-28). Ominously enough, the myth also alleges that Jesus’ forerunner was none other than the serpent. The book of Revelation clearly identifies the serpent as the Devil. However, the Hypostasis claims that the serpent was actually an “incognito savior” sent by the so-called “High God” to liberate man from Jehovah, who is “rudely caricatured in this tale as the ‘Arrogant archon'” (27). Over the years, several candidates have attempted to fill the position of the long-awaited “Gnostic adept.” The claimants have come from many esoteric corners. Simon the Magician, Mani of the Manicheans, Jacob Frank of the Frankists, and Lord Maitreya of the New Age movement are just a few. All of them have reiterated the message of the serpent: “Ye shall be as gods.” Reverend Sun Myung Moon is merely the latest claimant in this ongoing chain of deceivers.

On more than one occasion, Jesus and His disciples warned of many false Christs entering the world. Jesus foresaw a protracted conflict between several counterfeit Messiahs and Himself. This ongoing war is foreshadowed by the events in the book of Genesis. Shortly after the serpent’s deception in Eden and mankind’s subsequent fall, the Lord revealed his plan of salvation for humanity: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel” (Genesis 3:15). Encapsulated within this prognostication is a vivid portrait of Jesus Christ, who is the divinely implanted seed of the woman, defeating the seed of the serpent. The victory of Calvary would be followed by a series of conflicts between the true Savior and several counterfeit Messiahs. Researcher John Daniel elaborates:

Through the “seed” of woman, God would provide a Redeemer. The serpent, representing Satan, would also have a “seed,” a counterfeit redeemer. Conflict would break out between the serpent’s seed and the woman’s seed. (102)

Therefore, the new “seed” of the serpent could be a succession of false messiahs. Such a succession would probably culminate with a final counterfeit Christ. Of course, this last anti-Christ would be vanquished with the return of the Lord’s true Messiah. Daniel explains:

To understand how this conflict between God and Satan is to be played out in human history, we must consider the key Hebrew words in the statement, “he [Christ] shall bruise your [the serpent’s] head, and you shall bruise his heel.” The Hebrew primitive root word for heel means to “supplant, circumvent, or trip up.” It suggests that the Serpent or Satan shall set up a religion which becomes a stumbling block to supplant or circumvent the plane of God for our redemption; the Adversary will attempt as well as to “trip up,” or “circumvent” the Redeemer. The Redeemer, on the other hand, would bruise the head of the serpent. The Hebrew word for head means “ruler,” and the word for bruise means “overwhelm.” In other words, Satan is the “head” or “ruler” of this present world, but in the end Jesus Christ, the Redeemer, shall ultimately bruise, or “overwhelm” Satan (Rev. 19:11-20:15). (102)

As the messianic conveyor belt of religious engineering continues to grind, the resulting Saviors will only grow more and more unfamiliar to the eyes of the believer. Portrayed as more of a sociopolitical Utopian than a spiritual Savior, the Dominionist Christ exemplifies this reality. It comes as little surprise that Jesus admonished, “Many shall come in my name.”

Criminalizing Christianity: The Anti-Concept of “Fundamentalism”

With the recent Ted Haggard scandal, the same old anti-Christian stigmas have resurfaced. In particular, media pundits and talking heads have been liberally tossing about the term “fundamentalism.” The very invocation of this term usually stifles all meaningful discourse regarding Christianity and its fundamental precepts. “Fundamentalism” has come to be associated with either “cultural retrograde” or “extremism.” The kind of “cultural retrograde” inferred by the term “fundamentalism” is an unwillingness to accept social changes (e.g., abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage, etc.) because they are irreconcilable with the principles of an indigenous belief system. Bear in mind that the proponents of such social changes seldom ever demonstrate how their reforms would constitute a cultural advancement. The kind of “extremism” inferred by the term “fundamentalism” is violent political activism and terrorism. Bear in mind that the opponents of such “extremism” seldom ever condemn radicals who share their own ideological propensities. It is this nebulous criterion for “fundamentalism’s” application that betrays the stigma’s true purpose.

The most common recipients of this stigma have been Christians, Jews, and Muslims that exhibit a passionate adherence to the fundamentals of their respective belief systems. Ironically, terrorist organizations that parasitically attach themselves to one of these faiths typically bowdlerize the fundamentals of the host belief system. Thus, they cannot be characterized as genuine “fundamentalists.” If anything, they represent hideous aberrations, conceptually and philosophically antithetical to the fundamentals of the belief systems they co-opt. However, seldom are such distinctions made. As a result, all of the adherents of the traditional Abrahamic faiths are vilified. The term “fundamentalism” qualifies as what philosopher Ayn Rand calls an “anti-concept.” Rand defines the anti-concept as:

an artificial, unnecessary, and (rationally) unusable term, designed to replace or obliterate some legitimate concepts-a term which sounds like a concept, but stands for a “package-deal” of disparate, incongruous, contradictory elements taken out of any logical conceptual order or context, a “package deal” whose (approximately) defining characteristic is always a non-essential. (176)

“Fundamentalism” is an anti-concept designed to confuse Christianity and the other Abrahamic faiths with cultural retrograde or, at worst, terrorism. Predictably, most audiences that hear the term make such unfounded correlations. Yet, as it is invoked, the term “fundamentalism” is virtually meaningless. “Fundamentalism” connotes an unwavering adherence to the “fundamentals” of a belief system. Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary defines a “fundamental” as “one of the minimum constituents without which a thing or a system would not be what it is” (no pagination). For all practical purposes, anybody and everybody qualifies as some sort of fundamentalist. A physicist accepts the “fundamentals” of physics. A mathematician accepts the “fundamentals” of mathematics. Likewise, a Christian accepts the “fundamentals” of Christianity. Without these “fundamentals,” Christianity would not be what it is. Yet, that is precisely what detractors who invoke the term “fundamentalist” want. They want the faithful to abandon the fundamentals of their faith, thereby eviscerating Christianity. Any Christian who refuses to abandon his or her beliefs and convictions is deemed a “fundamentalist.” Of course, the bestowal of this anti-concept precedes the subject’s stigmatization and disenfranchisement. This is precisely the purpose for which the anti-concept of “fundamentalism” was designed.

The most insidious correlation that the term “fundamentalism” makes is the association of deeply held principles with “extremism.” “Extremism” itself is an anti-concept. Rand states:

This brings us to the deeper implications of the term “extremism.” It is obvious that an uncompromising stand (on anything) is the actual characteristic which that “anti-concept” is designed to damn. It is also obvious that compromise is incompatible with morality. In the field of morality, compromise is surrender to evil. (182)

“Fundamentalism” and its anti-conceptual correlative, “extremism,” are merely the semantic weapons of moral relativism. The nebulous criterion for the invocation of these stigmas betrays the nihilistic proclivities of those who use them. Rand eloquently synopsizes:

There can be no compromise on basic principles. There can be no compromise on moral issues. There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of truth, of rational conviction. If an uncompromising stand is to be smeared as “extremism,” then that smear is directed at any devotion to values, any loyalty to principles, any profound conviction, any consistency, any steadfastness, any passion, any dedication to an unbreached, inviolate truth – any man of integrity. (182)

The Ted Haggard scandal has made it easier to smear men of integrity. Any Christian who genuinely embraces his or her faith is a “fundamentalist” and, therefore, qualifies as an “extremist.” Of course, “extremists” are typically criminals. Thus, Christianity itself must be criminalized. The crusade to abolish all faiths and theistic Weltanschauungs has been edified. No doubt, Haggard will join Jim Baker and Jimmy Swaggart in the litany of “cases in point” cited by secular progressives. Ironically, left-wing critics have a deviation from “fundamentals” to thank for the Ted Haggard scandal. Moreover, it was the bowdlerization of Christian principles that resulted in the aberrations of Dominionism and the CNP. Neoconservativism, which is closely aligned with these two aberrations, is another instance where the so-called “political right” has practiced what the political left preaches. These evils stem from a disregard for “fundamentals.” Yet, it is precisely such disregard that leftists encourage. Herein is one of the most frustrating paradoxes surrounding Dominionism, the CNP, and the Ted Haggard affair. However, there is little chance that such a paradox will ever be recognized by the masses. With the anti-concept of “fundamentalism” deluging public forums, further deviation from principles is guaranteed and another Ted Haggard waits to fall.

The Culture War: The Anatomy of a Hegelian Dialectic

Predictably, numerous left-wing ideologues have seized upon the revelations concerning the Evangelical movement as an opportunity to criminalize Christianity. Yet, most of the deep political machinations embedded within the Evangelical establishment are products of left-wing political and philosophical thought. For instance, secular progressive Michelle Goldberg characterizes the Evangelical establishment’s rejection of evolutionary theory as “William Jennings Bryan’s Revenge” (93). Yet, one must question the authenticity of several evangelicals’ anti-Darwinian sentiments. Ted Haggard is an open proponent of globalism (Sharlet, “Soldiers of Christ Part One,” no pagination). Deceased Vatican insider Malachi Martin astutely characterized globalism as “sociopolitical Darwinism.” Both Transnationalists and Internationalists view the emergence of a politically and economically interdependent world government as a natural corollary of man’s alleged “political evolution.” Martin elaborates:

From Pope John Paul’s vantage point, the thing that seems to bind these two groups most closely in practical terms is that at heart, and philosophically speaking, both are sociopolitical Darwinists. Of course, the Pope doesn’t for a moment imagine that such activists as these are likely to take time out from their total immersion in world affairs to formulate their basic group philosophy in the same way that the Humanists have. There is no Internationalist or Transnationalist equivalent of Professor Paul Kurtz’s Humanist Manifesto II.

Still, in John Paul’s assessment, both of these globalist groups operate on the same fundamental assumptions about the meaning of human society today. Both agree on the face of it that the most important single trait that pervades the life of all nations is interdependence. And both agree that interdependence is a progressive function of evolutionary progress. Evolutionary, as in Darwin.

In practical terms, both of these groups operate on the same working assumption Charles Darwin arbitrarily adopted to rationalize his feelings about mankind’s physical origins and history. If it worked so well for Darwin, they almost seem to say, why not expand the idea of orderly progress through natural evolution to include such sociopolitical arrangements as corporations and nations? In this view, the most useful of Darwin’s concepts is that of human existence as essentially a struggle in which the weakest perish, the fittest survive and the strongest flourish.

When applied to sociopolitical arrangements, this Darwinist process seems almost to dictate the Internationalist and Transnationalist one-world view of things. The continuing clash and contention in the world as it has been until now has resulted in a slow evolution of those who have survived from one stage of interdependent order to another. From time to time, natural “catastrophes” have intervened, forcing “nature” to take another path. But at each new stage, interdependence has become more important and more complex.

The greater the interdependence between groups, the higher the evolutionary stage, the more the balance achieved between interdependent groups results in the common good.

The view of the Internationalists and Transnationalists is that they are the ones who are equipped to bring mankind to the highest level of the sociopolitical evolution. Their effort is to bring together into one harmonious whole all those separate parts of our world that have not yet “evolved” into a natural cohesion for the common good. (314-15)

Although Haggard espouses an ostensibly anti-Darwinian Weltanschauung, his advocacy of globalism betrays his sociopolitical Darwinian propensities. Thus, Haggard only disagrees with Darwinism’s developmental biology, not its principles. He has absolutely no problem with a world ruled according to the dictum, “Survival of the fittest.” This is made painfully apparent by Haggard’s enthusiastic support for the neoconservative doctrine of preemptive war (Sharlet, “Soldiers of Christ Part One,” no pagination). According to the sociopolitical Darwinism of the global elite, preemptive warfare is central to the evolutionary development of humanity. Anisa Abd el Fattah explains:

The idea of preventive wars, which we now call preemptive strikes, became popular during the rise of Social Darwinism and Eugenics, and led to the mass killings of those deemed weak, handicapped, poor and of inferior races throughout Asia, Europe, and the European colonies in Africa. The idea of perpetual war, and disaster as a means by which to accelerate the evolution of the human species was also popular during that era, as it is now. (No pagination)

Haggard and his fellow evangelicals may publicly decry evolutionary theory, but they are no less sociopolitical Darwinians themselves. Evangelicals like Haggard are responsible for embedding an unconscious strain of Darwinian thought within mainstream Christianity. The resulting aberration is a movement that spouts euphemisms about the “love of Christ” and, simultaneously, promotes virulently anti-Christian ideas and concepts. For the past seven years, pastors all over America have urged their congregations to support a presidency that engages in the Darwinian practice of preemptive warfare. Naïve souls who have never even cracked a Bible allow their fiercely partisan Church leaders to dictate which presidential candidates constitute “God’s elect.” In this sense, the modern Evangelical movement has done even more than the Enlightenment to establish a technocratic dictatorship.

Meanwhile, secular progressives have the nerve to act outraged. The controlled Evangelical movement is merely using the name of Christ to create that which secular progressives work to establish in the name of “Man.” In actuality, secular progressives are no less technocratic than their pseudo-Christian counterparts. In fact, the concept of technocratic governance originated with the Enlightenment rationalism of August Comte, who would inspire the sociopolitical Utopians of the left. Ian Dowbiggin states:

Twentieth-century liberals’ statist and corporatist bent, as well as their confidence in reform, government interventionism, and technocratic elites, can be traced back to the Comtean tradition of the previous century. (11)

Such technocratic propensities are easily detectable within the left-wing rhetoric of secular progressives like Michelle Goldberg. In her book, Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism, Goldberg correctly identifies some of the technocratic features of the CNP and Dominionism. However, she uses these aberrations as an opportunity to malign all Christians. Worse still, the only alternative that Goldberg offers is her own left-wing variety of Technocracy. With unabashed technocratic hubris, Goldberg declares: “Experts accept evolution as something very close to fact, but Americans never have” (93). Of course, the inference is that so-called “experts” must act as the arbiters of consensus reality. According to Goldberg, Darwinism is a fact because the anointed “experts” of institutionally accredited science deem it so. Goldberg’s priesthood of “experts” constitutes an epistemological cartel. It comes as little surprise that the ecclesiastical authorities of this scientistic theocracy would choose Darwinism as the official state sanctioned religion. After all, it was Darwin’s Gnostic myth that provided the scientific foundation for both communism and fascism, which are ideological kissing cousins of Goldberg’s beloved political left.

Goldberg’s statements betray the secular progressive’s proclivities toward the Wellsian concept of a democracy of “experts.” In The Open Conspiracy, H.G. Wells openly endorsed the formation of a one-world socialist totalitarian government. The only form of democracy practiced within such a global government would be a parliamentary system reserved for a so-called “cognitive elite.” Commenting on such a democracy, Wells states:

The world’s political organization will be democratic, that is to say, the government and direction of affairs will be in immediate touch with and responsive to the general thought of the educated whole population. (26)

Literary critic and author W. Warren Wagar comments on this statement:

Read carefully. He did not say the world government would be elected by the people, or that it would even be responsive to the people just to those who were “educated.” (Wells 26)

In truth, the concept of a “democracy of experts,” or a Technocracy, was spawned by the anti-Christian Enlightenment. Secular progressives like Goldberg and Chris Hedges characterize their pseudo-Christian opposition as a “war against the Enlightenment.” However, many of the technocratic elements of the Enlightenment are present within the Evangelical movement, which has been successfully co-opted an controlled by factions of the power elite. This fact is made painfully evident by the Evangelical establishment’s advocacy of neoconservativism. The cult of neoconservativism has always paraded around under a patriotic, pro-American, anticommunist facade. What lies behind this veneer? Frank Fischer answers this question in his book Technocracy and the Politics of Expertise: “. . .neoconservativism is at base an elitist ideology aimed at promoting a new group of conservative technocrats.” (172)

To promote their own variety of Technocracy, neoconservatives present themselves as the antithesis to left-wing “policy professionals.” However, the conflict between these two is superficial at best. As is the case with all good Hegelian dialectics, the neoconservative antithesis is not dichotomously related to its alleged technocratic opposition. Fischer elaborates:

Neoconservatives regularly argue that knowledge elites are a threat to democracy. But if this is their primary concern, their solution is scarcely designed to remedy the problem. Indeed, by challenging the Democratic party’s use of policy expertise with a counterintelligentsia, they implicitly accept-and approve of-the evolving technocratic terrain. Developing a conservative cadre of policy analysts cannot be interpreted as a measure designed to return power to the people. (171)

Fischer correctly argues that Neoconservativism’s advocacy of a so-called “conservative cadre of policy analysts” precludes citizen participation:

Neoconservatives doubtless maintain that their policy advisers speak for different political values: Rather than the welfare state and bureaucratic paternalism, conservative experts advocate democracy and free market individualism. Such an argument, however, fails to address the critical issue. As a system of decision making geared toward expert knowledge, technocracy – liberal or conservative – necessarily blocks meaningful participation for the average citizen. Ultimately only those who can interpret the complex technical languages that increasingly frame economic and social issues have access to the play of power Democratic rhetoric aside, those who nurture a conservative intelligentsia in reality only help to extend an elite system of policy-making. (171-72)

Whether under the superfluous appellations of conservative or liberal, “policy professionals” still constitute what Wells referred to as a “democracy of experts.” Neoconservativism’s promotion of its own “policy professionals” betrays the ideology’s technocratic propensities. Rhetoric concerning “democracy” and “free market individualism” amounts to little more than pageantry. Neoconservativism is but the latest incarnation of the technocratic movement and represents another stage in the sociopolitical Darwinism’s metastasis.

Neoconservativism’s technocratic pedigree is also graphically illustrated by its adherents’ strong support for FDR’s New Deal. Irving Kristol, the “godfather of neoconservatism,” states in his book Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea that neocons: “. . .accepted the New Deal in principle. . .” (x). Later in his book, Kristol writes:

In a way, the symbol of the influence of neoconservative thinking on the Republican party was the fact that Ronald Reagan could praise Franklin D. Roosevelt as a great American president-praise echoed by Newt Gingrich a dozen years later, when it is no longer so surprising. (379)

Why were neoconservatives so amicable towards the socialism of the New Deal? The answer is because Roosevelt’s Marxist proclivities harmonized with the neoconservative variety of Technocracy. It is interesting to note that “godfather” Kristol was a Trotskyist in his youth. Kristol makes it clear that he is unrepentant: “I regard myself lucky to have been a young Trotskyist and I have not a single bitter memory” (Neoconservativism: The Autobiography of an Idea, 13). The statist tradition found in Marxism is also carried on by the neocons. This is another point made clear by Kristol: “Neocons do not feel that kind of alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable” (“The Neoconservative Persuasion,” no pagination).

Several neoconservative ideologues have espoused socialist ideas. Former neoconservative Michael Lind admits:

The fact that most of the younger neocons were never on the left is irrelevant; they are the intellectual (and, in the case of William Kristol and John Podhoretz, the literal) heirs of older ex-leftists. The idea that the United States and similar societies are dominated by a decadent, postbourgeois “new class” was developed by thinkers in the Trotskyist tradition like James Burnham and Max Schachtman, who influenced an older generation of neocons. The concept of the “global democratic revolution” has its origins in the Trotskyist Fourth International’s vision of permanent revolution. The economic determinist idea that liberal democracy is an epiphenomenon of capitalism, promoted by neocons like Michael Novak, is simply Marxism with entrepreneurs substituted for proletarians as the heroic subjects of history. (No pagination)

Neoconservativism, which has been embraced by the controlled Evangelical movement, is actually a creature of the political left. It is truly ironic that secular progressives would condemn their pseudo-Christian opponents for these dubious associations. If secular progressives are genuinely disturbed by the political system that the CNP, the Dominionists, and the Evangelical establishment are creating, then they must seriously question their own vision for society. Both sides are merely variants of the same neo-Gnostic vision and strive to immanentize the Eschaton. Both sides are merely variants of sociopolitical Darwinism and view global government as the unavoidable outcome of man’s alleged developmental ascent. This is a vintage Hegelian dialectic. The only difference is the name of the patron deity exalted by both sides. The god of secular progressives is man himself, enthroned to rule over a technocratic Utopia. The god of the Dominionists is a deistic Christ who proffers the neo-Gnostic mandate for a worldly kingdom sustained through worldly power.

Evidently, the culture war has provided fertile soil for the power elite’s Hegelian activism. The combatants in this dialectical struggle are merely fellow travelers on convergent paths toward a Hegelian synthesis. That synthesis is already underway, as is evidenced by the political ties being forged between leftist evangelicals and Dominionists. One example of this alliance is the recent “meeting of the minds” between Presidential hopeful Barack Obama and Dominionist, Mega-Church pastor Rick Warren. The pretext for their partnership seems to be AIDS awareness and prevention. After all, Warren invited Obama to a two-day AIDS summit held at his church (Donovan, no pagination). As cynical as it may sound, AIDS may be the last thing on Obama’s mind when it comes to his coalition with Warren. Democrats have come to appreciate how important it is to have a few Dominionists in their pockets if they want to seize this country’s sizeable Christian vote. Warren’s teachings are pure Dominionism. Sarah Leslie provides an examination into the Dominionist elements of Warren’s global P.E.A.C.E. plan:

Warren has audaciously called for a “Second Reformation” based upon his global P.E.A.C.E. Plan, which is a study in dominionism. Leftists who fret over Warren’s foray into AIDS may miss the more serious dominionist ramifications of his overall global plan. Warren intends to amass the world’s largest volunteer “army” of “one billion foot soldiers” to implement his global P.E.A.C.E. Plan. (No pagination)

It is very interesting that Warren refers to his Dominionists scheme as a “Second Reformation.” The father of the first Reformation, Martin Luther, was actually an unconscious agent of secularization. Under Catholicism, the truth had become the province of priests and other self-proclaimed “mediators of God.” However, Luther made the mistake of adopting nominalism as one of the chief philosophical foundations for his doctrines. In The Western Experience, the authors write:

[S]ome of Luther’s positions had roots in nominalism, the most influential philosophical and theological movement of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, which had flourished at his old monastery. (450)

By the time Luther’s ideas were codified in the Augsburg Confession, nominalism was already beginning to co-opt Christianity. Nominalism’s rejection of a knowable God harmonized with the superstitious notions of the time. Misunderstanding the troubles that beset them, many peasants made the anthropic attribution of the Black Death to God’s will. Following this baseless assumption to its logical conclusion, many surmised that God was neither merciful nor knowable. Such inferences clearly overlooked the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which represented the ultimate act of grace on God’s part. Nevertheless, the superstitious populace were beginning to accept the new portrayal of God as an indifferent deistic spirit. Nominalism merely edified such beliefs. Invariably, nominalism would seduce those who would eventually convert to Protestantism.

Christians should have had more than a few philosophical misgivings with nominalism, especially in light of its commonalities with humanism:

Although nominalists and humanists were frequently at odds, they did share a dissatisfaction with aspects of the medieval intellectual tradition, especially the speculative abstractions of medieval thought; and both advocated approaches to reality that concentrated on the concrete and the present and demanded a strict awareness of method. (424)

Suddenly, Christianity was infused with materialism and radical empiricism. There was an occult character to both of these philosophical positions. Radical empiricism rejects causality, thereby abolishing any epistemological certainty and reducing reality to a holograph that can be potentially manipulated through the “sorcery” of science. Materialism emphasizes the primacy of matter, inferring that the physical universe is a veritable golem that created itself. Despite their clearly anti-theistic nature, these ideas began to insinuate themselves within Christianity.

With nominalist epistemology enshrined, man was ontologically isolated from his Creator. Knowledge was purely the province of the senses and the physical universe constituted the totality of reality itself. Increasingly, theologians invoked naturalistic interpretations of the Scriptures, thereby negating the miraculous and supernatural nature of God. The spiritual elements that remained embedded in Christianity assumed more of a Gnostic character, depicting the physical body as an impediment to man’s knowledge of God and venerating death as a welcome release from a corporeal prison. Gradually, a Hegelian synthesis between spiritualism and materialism was occurring. The result was a paganized Christianity, which hardly promised the abundant life offered by its Savior.

Luther’s unwitting role in the popularization of such thinking suggests an occult manipulation. There is already a body of evidence supporting the contention that occult elements had penetrated Christendom and were working towards its demise. Malachi Martin states:

As we know, some of the chief architects of the Reformation–Martin Luther, Philip Melanchthon, Johannes Reuchlin, Jan Amos Komensky–belonged to occult societies. (521)

Author William Bramley presents evidence that backs Martin’s contention:

Luther’s seal consisted of his initials on either side of two Brotherhood symbols: the rose and the cross. The rose and cross are the chief symbols of the Rosicrucian Order. The word “Rosicrucian” itself comes from the Latin words “rose”(“rose”) and “cruces” (“cross”). (205)

Luther’s involvement in the Rosicrucian Order made him an ideal instrument of secret societies. Michael Howard reveals explains the motive for this manipulation:

The Order had good political reasons for initially supporting the Protestant cause. On the surface, as heirs to the pre-Christian Ancient Wisdom, the secret societies would have gained little from religious reform. However, by supporting the Protestant dissidents they helped to weaken the political power of the Roman Catholic Church, the traditional enemy of the Cathars, the Templars and the Freemasons. (54).

However, occultism was not the only belief system benefiting from the Reformation. Elitism and oligarchy would also receive a boost from Luther’s activities. It should be recalled that many of the secret societies supporting Luther acted as elite conduits. While Luther was already ideologically aligned with the elites in many ways, he officially became their property in 1521. In this year, the papacy’s secular representative, Emperor Charles V, summoned Luther to a Diet at the city known as Worms (Chambers, Hanawalt, et al. 449). Luther was to defend himself against a papal decree that excommunicated him from the Church (449).

At the Diet, Luther refused to recant any of his beliefs (450). This led to the Emperor issuing an imperial edict for the monk’s arrest (450). However, Luther was rescued by the Elector Frederick III of Saxony (450). Frederick staged a kidnapping of the monk and hid him away in Wartburg Castle (450). The regional warlord of Saxony had much to gain by protecting Luther. Frederick represented a group of German princes that opposed the influence of the Church and its secular representative, the Emperor (450). These elites would use Luther’s teachings to justify breaking with the ecclesiastical authorities and establishing their own secular systems. In the end, the Reformation reformed nothing at all. It caused a division in Christendom and led Europe down the path of secularization. Howard states:

Indirectly the Reformation gave the impetus for the Scientific Revolution of the seventeenth century, which centred on Newton, and led to the founding of the Royal Society after the English Civil War. (148)

The “Scientific Revolution” facilitated by the Reformation led to the popularization of Baconian concepts, which were radically scientistic and occult in character. Commensurate with this paradigm shift was the rise of the elite’s first secular epistemological cartel and the acculturation of the masses to technocratic ideas. Warren might be repeating this process, even though it was damaging to Christian civilization and unleashed an era of some of the worst pagan brutality. Leftists everywhere have joined Warren and other Dominionists in trying to achieve these plans. Sarah Leslie writes:

Evangelical Leftists (Tom Sine, Ron Sider, Jim Wallis and others) have always hobnobbed with the dominionists. Many of the key Leftist dominionists have been coalescing around an agenda to eradicate world poverty, laboring with [Dominionist] Rick Warren to implement the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals. Micah Challenge is one of the key organizations operating in this realm. A number of international mission networking agencies have formed alliances around these mutual kingdom aspirations. Working to end poverty may seem laudable on the surface. But scratch the surface and dominionism appears. Charity is not what it seems. Charity is a vehicle to maneuver dominionism into the best possible international publicity spotlight. And altruistic appeals for charitable sacrifice are a mechanism to sign up recruits in the billion man army. (No pagination)

The United Nations can hardly be characterized as a right-wing Christian organization. Historically, the UN has promoted Marxist economic policies of wealth redistribution, which would upset the stomach of any patriotic American Christian. Moreover, the UN has advocated Malthusian programs of population control that have outraged many traditional Christians. Secular progressives like Michelle Goldberg claim that the Dominionists and the CNP are opposed to the United Nations. There may, in fact, be some conflicts between these factions. To be sure, neoconservatives, which are closely aligned with the Dominionists and the CNP, have been overtly critical of the United Nations. However, the conflict is superficial at best. These factions are only at variance over the globalist blueprint that each is attempting to actuate. Looming on the horizon is the Hegelian synthesis of these warring factions.

In short, the culture war has become a dialectical manipulation. It is a catalyst for Hegelian activism, which is a specialty of the power elite. Christians must dislodge themselves from partisan affiliations, which are susceptible to Hegelian activism. Like the Apostles of Jesus Christ in the early Church, the modern Christian shall have to operate on a grass roots level. Otherwise, the Church shall become the prostitute for the State. The culture war can be won, but not through strict adherence to partisan affiliations and political parties. When the Church relies upon such machinations, it becomes embroiled in the dialectical feuds of elite factions. The only true victor in these dialectical feuds shall be the global oligarchs. Truth will be the final and most tragic casualty of the conflict. Such are the consequences of Hegelian thinking. The real war is not between left and right, but right and wrong.

The Great Awakening

As the sham of managed partisan conflict is becoming increasingly apparent, more than a few Christians are already realizing that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans can lay claim to the distinction of being “God’s party.” Conservative Christian David Kuo, who is former second-in-command of Bush’s Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, recently published a book entitled Tempting Faith (Larsen, no pagination). In this book, Kuo states that the Bush White House only feigned respect for conservative Christians and exploited the constituency for politically expediencies. The very same evangelical leaders that were courted by the Bush administration were commonly referred to as “nuts” in the office of Karl Rove (no pagination). With painful candor, Kuo reveals that “National Christian leaders received hugs and smiles in person and then were dismissed behind their backs and described as ‘ridiculous,’ ‘out of control,’ and just plain ‘goofy'” (no pagination). Evidently, there are many within the present administration that harbor contempt for the community of faith.

However, the deception becomes even more sinister upon closer examination. MSNBC journalist Jonathan Larsen elaborates:

More seriously, Kuo alleges that then-White House political affairs director Ken Mehlman knowingly participated in a scheme to use the office, and taxpayer funds, to mount ostensibly “nonpartisan” events that were, in reality, designed with the intent of mobilizing religious voters in 20 targeted races.

Nineteen out of the 20 targeted races were won by Republicans, Kuo reports. The outreach was so extensive and so powerful in motivating not just conservative evangelicals, but also traditionally Democratic minorities, that Kuo attributes Bush’s 2004 Ohio victory “at least partially … to the conferences we had launched two years before.”

With the exception of one reporter from the Washington Post, Kuo says the media were oblivious to the political nature and impact of his office’s events, in part because so much of the debate centered on issues of separation of church and state.

In fact, the Bush administration often promoted the faith-based agenda by claiming that existing government regulations were too restrictive on religious organizations seeking to serve the public. (No pagination)

The illusion is beginning to fade. The message to every Christian should be clear. Just in case there is any confusion, perhaps Revelation 18:4 will help to clarify that message: “Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not her plagues.” It is time for Christians everywhere to come out of the deep politics of God.

Sources Cited

About the Authors

Phillip D. Collins acted as the editor for The Hidden Face of Terrorism. He co-authored the book The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship, which is available at It is also available as an E-book at Phillip has also written articles for Paranoia Magazine, MKzine, News With Views, B.I.P.E.D.: The Official Website of Darwinian Dissent and Conspiracy Archive. He has also been interviewed on several radio programs, including A Closer Look, Peering Into Darkness, From the Grassy Knoll, Frankly Speaking, the ByteShow, and Sphinx Radio.

In 1999, Phillip earned an Associate degree of Arts and Science. In 2006, he earned a bachelor’s degree with a major in communication studies and liberal studies along with a minor in philosophy. During the course of his seven-year college career, Phillip has studied philosophy, religion, political science, semiotics, journalism, theatre, and classic literature. He recently completed a collection of short stories, poetry, and prose entitled Expansive Thoughts. Readers can learn more about it at

Paul D. Collins has studied suppressed history and the shadowy undercurrents of world political dynamics for roughly eleven years. In 1999, he earned his Associate of Arts and Science degree. In 2006, he completed his bachelor’s degree with a major in liberal studies and a minor political science. Paul has authored another book entitled The Hidden Face of Terrorism: The Dark Side of Social Engineering, From Antiquity to September 11. Published in November 2002, the book is available online from,, and also It can be purchased as an e-book (ISBN 1-4033-6798-1) or in paperback format (ISBN 1-4033-6799-X). Paul also co-authored The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship.