by Paul & Phillip D. Collins ©, May 18th, 2008

Dominionism: Marrying Christianity to the Kosmos

In John 18:33, Pilate asked Jesus, “Art thou the King of the Jews?” In John 18:36, Jesus replied, “My kingdom is not of this world.” The original Greek word for “world” is kosmos, which connotes an arrangement, system, order, or government. Jesus was not expressing derision for the physical world, but with the usurious political systems that had come to dominate it. Some Christians have construed this response as a rationale for indolence and have embraced an apathetic brand of political abdication theology. However, Christian proponents of political abdication fail to consider the transliteration of kosmos and the historical background against which the term was invoked. Jesus was not condemning political activism. Instead, He was condemning the world’s political systems of that time, specifically the oligarchical model of the Roman Empire and its surrogate, the theocracy of the Pharisees.

That being said, there is another variety of so-called “Christians” that constitutes an equally extreme polar opponent to abdication theologians. This other polar extreme is known as “Dominionism.” While abdication theologians construe the Scriptures as a rationale for complete political abdication, Dominionists distort Genesis 1:28 to legitimize a purely political agenda. Dominionists totally politicize the Gospel, thus marrying Christianity to secular institutions. Once it is wedded to secularism, Christianity adopts the same anthropocentric premises of secularism. One of the anthropocentric premises that tend to pervade secularized Christianity is the notion that man must save himself. This was a core contention of communism, fascism, and other forms of anti-theistic sociopolitical Utopianism. In the context of Dominionism, this contention is given a marginally theistic interpretation: Man fully embodies and facilitates the march of God on earth. However, there is very little difference between the anti-theistic and theistic iterations of this contention. In both instances, the adherent’s gaze is firmly fixed on the ontological confines of this world.

As is the case with all Hegelian dialectics, the dialectic extremes of abdication theology and Dominionist theology produce the same outcome: totalitarianism. The abdication theologian surrenders to totalitarianism, whereas the Dominionist actively creates totalitarianism. Basically, Dominionism is a cult of neo-Gnostic jihadists committed to goals that almost mirror the objectives of earlier sociopolitical Utopians. Chris Hedges describes Dominionism as follows:

What the disparate sects of this movement, known as Dominionism, share is an obsession with political power. A decades-long refusal to engage in politics at all following the Scopes trial has been replaced by a call for Christian “dominion” over the nation and, eventually, over the earth itself. Dominionists preach that Jesus has called them to build the kingdom of God in the here and now, whereas previously it was thought we would have to wait for it. America becomes, in this militant biblicism, an agent of God, and all political and intellectual opponents of America’s Christian leaders are viewed, quite simply, as agents of Satan. (No pagination)

There is a crucial distinction to be made between using the Scriptures as a compass for making decisions within the political system and using the Scriptures as a rationale for co-opting and controlling the political system. In Vengeance is Ours: The Church in Dominion, Albert Dager synopsizes the three basic tenets upon which this militarized form of Christianity is premised:

1) Satan usurped man’s dominion over the earth through the temptation of Adam and Eve; 2) The Church is God’s instrument to take dominion back from Satan; 3) Jesus cannot or will not return until the Church has taken dominion by gaining control of the earth’s governmental and social institutions. (87)

Thus, Jesus’ kingdom is reduced to a secular government established by and maintained through secular power. While secular progressives cite Dominionism as a violation of the separation of church and state, it actually represents the subsumption of the church by the state. Dominionism empowers temporal machinations. Political, social, and military powers attain ascendancy under the rubric of maintaining the Dominionist government. Ultimately, the State is apotheosized. Again, this was an objective of earlier sociopolitical Utopians. That this particular strain of Utopianism has a marginally theistic gloss is inconsequential. Dominionism represents but one more permutation of sociopolitical Utopianism. This contention is reinforced by Dominionism’s inherently neo-Gnostic character.

Unholy Warriors: Dominionism’s Neo-Gnostic Jihad

The neo-Gnostic character of Dominionism is underscored by its mandate for Dominionists to “build the kingdom of God in the here and now.” Such a mandate reconceptualizes the Eschaton (i.e., “end of days”) as a purely immanent event. “Immanence” is a term derived from the Latin in manere, which means “to remain within” (“Immanence,” no pagination). Likewise, the Dominionists’ Eschaton purely indwells the ontological plane of the physical universe. The practice of immanentization finds its conceptual basis with the Trinitarian symbolism of Joachim of Fiore. Historian Eric Voegelin expands on Joachim’s symbolism:

Joachim of Flora broke with the Augustinian conception of a Christian society when he applied the symbol of the Trinity to the course of history…. In his trinitarian eschatology Joachim created the aggregate of symbols which govern the self-interpretation of modern political society to this day…. The first of these symbols is the conception of history as a sequence of three ages, of which the third age is intelligibly the final Third Realm…. As variations of this symbol are recognizable the humanistic and encyclopedist periodization of history into ancient, medieval and modern history; Turgot’s and Comte’s theory of a sequence of theological, metaphysical and scientific phases; Hegel’s dialectic of the three stages of freedom and self-reflective spiritual fulfillment; the Marxian dialectic of the three states of primitive communism, class society, and final Communism; and, finally, the National Socialist symbol of the Third Realm. (111-12)

Immanentization stemmed the Gnostic derision for faith. Salvation, according to Gnosticism, was achieved through gnosis (knowledge). Human reason was apotheosized and the cognitive powers of man became the chief facilitator of his salvation. This contention rejected the Christian mandate to “walk by faith and not by the sight” (2 Corinthians 5:7). Thus, the Gnostic sought to make transcendent concepts intelligible to the rational mind. To gratify their anthropocentric hubris, the Gnostics reconceptualized objects of faith as objects of immanent experience. Voegelin explains:

The attempt at immanentizing the meaning of existence is fundamentally an attempt at bringing our knowledge of transcendence into a firmer grip than the cognitio fidei, the cognition of faith, will afford, and the Gnostic experiences offer this firmer grip insofar as they are an expansion of the soul to the point where God is drawn into the existence of man. (124)

Yet, for mortals, the immanentization of the transcendent was and is a metaphysical impossibility. That which is not immanent cannot be arbitrarily made immanent. The more that Gnostics attempted to immanentize objects of faith, the more bowdlerized the metaphysical concepts of the transcendent realm became. This metaphysical conundrum is exemplified by the fallacy stemming from the immanentization of the Eschaton:

From the Joachitic immanentization, a theoretical problem arises which occurs neither in classic antiquity nor in orthodox Christianity, that is, the problem of an adios in history…. There is no eidos of history because the eschatological supernature is not a nature in the philosophical, immanent case. The problem of an eidos in history, hence, arises only when Christian transcendental fulfillment becomes immanentized. Such an immanentist hypostasis of the eschaton, however, is a theoretical fallacy. Things are not things, nor do they have essences, by arbitrary declaration. The course of history as a whole is no object of experience; history has no eidos, because the course of history extends into the unknown future. The meaning of history, thus, is an illusion; and this illusory eidos is created by treating a symbol of faith as if it were a proposition concerning an object of immanent experience. (120)

The Dominionist mandate to “build the kingdom of God in the here and now” merely reiterates the Gnostic ambition to draw God “into the existence of man.” Like the Gnostics, Dominionists are not content with the limited knowledge of the transcendent afforded by the cognitio fidei. In Dominionist theology, objects of faith are reconceptualized as objects of immanent experience. This includes the Eschaton, which the Dominionist immanentizes by conducting a political coup.

Essentially, the Dominionist rejects Christ’s admonition to “walk by faith, not by sight” (2 Corinthians 5:7). While Dominionists might claim to have faith, their aspiration to build God’s kingdom themselves betrays their lack of faith in the Lord’s ability to fulfill His own will. In true anthropocentric fashion, the Dominionist becomes the will of God in toto. The Dominionist, not God, makes the kingdom come and the kingdom comes through purely secular institutions and political machinations.

Dominionism eviscerates Christianity. It transplants all of the transcendent objects of Christian faith within the ontological plane of the physical universe. Thus, Christianity is reduced to little more than a revolutionary ideology closely akin to communism and other forms of sociopolitical Utopianism. Ironically, most of the sociopolitical Utopian movements of history have been premised upon the rejection of the traditional theistic conception of God and the Gnostic doctrine of self-salvation. Although Dominionists speak about God, salvation, and faith, their notion of such concepts is couched in neo-Gnostic immanentism and sociopolitical Utopianism. To paraphrase the apostle Paul, they have a form of godliness, but deny its power (2 Timothy 3:5).

Dominionism and the Enlightenment: The Ominous Parallels

Eventually, the eschatological vision of Gnostic immanentization was codified as revolutionary doctrine by the early sociopolitical Utopians of the Enlightenment. The Gnostic trappings of the Enlightenment are demonstrable in Condorcet’s “doctrine of a coming Utopia, where indefinite progress would bring forth a ‘natural salvation’ of plenty and immortality” (Goeringer, no pagination). Condorcet’s doctrine of “natural salvation” merely reiterated the Gnostic doctrine of self-salvation. The Enlightenment also shared Gnosticism’s veneration of God’s chief opponent. In The Hypostasis of the Archons, an Egyptian Gnostic text, the serpent in Eden is portrayed as humanity’s benevolent “Instructor” and “incognito savior” (Raschke 27). Of course, Revelation 12:9 and 20:2 identifies the serpent as Satan, the Adversary of both God and man. Meanwhile, the Hypostasis caricatures Jehovah as “the archon of arrogance” (27). Likewise, the Enlightenment depicted the Devil as man’s liberator and God as the oppressive force of superstition. However, the sociopolitical Utopians of the Enlightenment would exalt Satan under his original appellation, Lucifer. Conrad Goeringer elaborates:

If the bible was the holy book of the Christian enlightenment, then the Encyclopedia was the inspiration of the Enlightenment. Here was a compendium of human knowledge dealing with arts, sciences mechanics and philosophy which swelled to some 36 volumes by 1780. Begun by the Atheist Diderot in 1751, the Encyclopedia bore the imprints of Voltaire, Montesque, Rousseau, Buffon, Turgot and others. Gracing the title page of Diderot’s compendium in the first edition was a drawing of Lucifer, symbol of light and rebellion, standing beside the masonic symbols of square and compass. (No pagination)

This veneration of the Devil under his original angelic title constituted the religion of Luciferianism. Like some varieties of Satanism, Luciferianism did not depict the devil as a literal metaphysical entity. Lucifer only symbolized the cognitive powers of man. He was the embodiment of science and reason. It was the Luciferian’s religious conviction that these two facilitative forces would dethrone the “superstitious” institutions of God and apotheosize man. This re-conceptualization of Lucifer reiterated the theme of Gnostic immanentization. Lucifer, whom traditional Christianity regards as a spiritual entity, was rendered purely immanent. No longer did Lucifer reside outside the ontological plane of the physical universe. Now, he was bodied forth by the human mind, which Enlightenment adherents believed to be a purely corporeal entity.

Diderot’s inclusion of Masonic symbols on the title page of Encyclopedia was quite appropriate. Luciferian thought permeated the early Masonic Lodge. In Morals and Dogma, 33rd Degree Freemason Albert Pike expresses unabashed praise for Lucifer:

LUCIFER, the Light-bearer! Strange and mysterious name to give to the Spirit of Darkness! Lucifer, the Son of the Morning! Is it he who bears the Light, and with its splendors intolerable blinds feeble, sensual, or selfish Souls? Doubt it not. (321)

Freemasonry, which enjoyed a certain degree of prominence during the Enlightenment, would play a significant role in disseminating Luciferianism on the popular level as secular humanism. Basically, secular humanism qualifies as an anthropocentric religion and its central precept is synopsized by the Protagorean dictum: “Man is the measure of all things.” Whittaker Chambers, former member of the communist underground in America, provides an eloquent summation of secular humanism:

“Humanism is not new. It is, in fact, man’s second oldest faith. Its promise was whispered in the first days of Creation under the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil: ‘Ye shall be as gods.'” (Qutd. in Baker 206)

This anthropocentric religion was a new Gnosticism that envisaged the manifestation of the Eschaton within the immanent cosmos. Commenting on this new strain of Gnosticism, Wolfgang Smith writes:

In place of an Eschaton which ontologically transcends the confines of this world, the modern Gnostic envisions an End within history, an Eschaton, therefore, which is to be realized within the ontological plane of this visible universe. (238; emphasis added).

The Enlightenment would reach its violent nadir with the bloody French Revolution, which would provide the blueprint for all modern socialist revolutions. Communism, fascism, and other competing forms of socialism proffer a heaven on earth. In this sense, all modern socialist revolutionaries qualify as secular Gnostics:

In this century, with the presentation of traditional religious positions in secular form, there has emerged a secular Gnosticism beside the other great secular religions–the mystical union of Fascism, the apocalypse of Marxist dialectic, the Earthly City of social democracy. The secular Gnosticism is almost never recognized for what it is, and it can exist alongside other convictions almost unperceived. (Webb 418)

The codification of Gnosticism as revolutionary doctrine produced secular movements that, sociologically, behaved like religious movements. The religious character of these secular movements is made evident by the “new reality” that they sought to tangibly enact. James H. Billington describes this “new reality”:

The new reality they sought was radically secular and stridently simple. The ideal was not the balanced complexity of the new American federation, but the occult simplicity of its great seal: an all-seeing eye atop a pyramid over the words Novus Ordo Seclorum. In search of primal, natural truths, revolutionaries looked back to pre-Christian antiquity–adopting pagan names like “Anaxagoras” Chaumette and “Anacharsis” Cloots, idealizing above all the semimythic Pythagoras as the model intellect-turned-revolutionary and the Pythagorean belief in prime numbers, geometric forms, and the higher harmonies of music. (6)

It is very interesting that such a “radically secular” reality would be so preoccupied with the “occult simplicity” and “pagan names” of “pre-Christian antiquity.” Yet, as sociologist William Sims Bainbridge observes, such occult proclivities are the natural corollaries of secularism:

Secularization does not mean a decline in the need for religion, but only a loss of power by traditional denominations. Studies of the geography of religion show that where the churches become weak, cults and occultism explode to fill the spiritual vacuum. (“Religions for a Galactic Civilization,” no pagination)

One of the occult personages that would remain as a fixture of the early revolutionary faith was Lucifer. However, he would assume yet another title. The term Lucifer, as translated by St. Jerome from the original Hebrew Helel (“bright one”), shares the same meaning as Prometheus who brought fire to humanity (“Lucifer,” no pagination). The mythical character of Prometheus was central to the Utopian vision of early socialist revolutionaries. James A. Billington explains:

A recurrent mythic theme for revolutionaries — early romantics, the young Marx, the Russians of Lenin’s time — was Prometheus, who stole fire from the gods for the use of mankind. The Promethean faith of revolutionaries resembled in many respects the general belief that science would lead men out of darkness into light. (6; emphasis added)

The Promethean contention that science was the lantern guiding man to illumination was vintage scientism. Scientism, which should not be confused with legitimate science, is the belief that the investigational methods of science are essential to all other fields of study. The modern mind, chronocentric as it is, might view such epistemological imperialism as desirable. However, as a system of quantification, science can only concern itself with quantifiable entities. Because they defy quantification, concepts like human dignity and liberty are precluded from a purely scientific outlook.

Nevertheless, the scientistic approach to governance was a hallmark of the Promethean revolutionaries. Friedrich Engels described Marx’s theory as “scientific socialism” (“Scientific socialism,” no pagination). Engels selected this term because both science and Marxism gave epistemological primacy to observable phenomenon (no pagination). Marx’s emphasis upon radical empiricism was presaged by Henri Saint-Simon’s physiological interpretation of the state, which extended the doctrine of sense certainty “into the altogether new field of social relations” (Billington 212). Adherents of Saint-Simon’s philosophy contended that “the key to diagnosing and curing the ills of humanity lay in an objective understanding of the physiological realities that lay behind all thinking and feeling” (212). Following this physiological interpretation of governance to its logical ends, Saint-Simon developed the precursor to Marx’s “scientific socialism”:

Believing that the scientific method should be applied to the body of society as well as to the individual body, Saint-Simon proceeded to analyze society in terms of its physiological components: classes. He never conceived of economic classes in the Marxian sense, but his functional class analysis prepared the way for Marx. (213)

Saint-Simon’s work has been described as the prescription for Sir Francis Bacon’s prophetic vision of a technocratic society (Fischer 69). Technocratic governance, or Technocracy, is a governmental system where scientists and technicians act as the sole decision-making body. This inherently anti-democratic concept originated within esoteric circles. Sir Francis Bacon developed the original model for Technocracy in his book, The New Atlantis. Published in 1627, The New Atlantis was adorned with the symbols of occult Freemasonry and presented the Rosicrucian mandate for the formation of an “Invisible College” (Howard 74-75). Bacon himself was a member of the secret Order of the Helmet and, some allege, a Grand Master of the secret Rosicrucian Order (74). The Utopia presented by Bacon in The New Atlantis was “a pure Technocratic society” (Fischer 66-67). The philosopher kings of Plato’s Republic were to be replaced by a “technical elite” (66-67). Scientists and technicians would circumvent conflicting political interests, giving rise to an apolitical bureaucracy.

Technocratic ideas constituted a portion of the conceptual and philosophical foundation for modern socialist totalitarian governance. Of course, a majority of socialist totalitarian regimes that have populated modernity have been overtly hostile towards theistic faiths, particularly Christianity. This derision for theistic faiths is attributable to the characteristic scientism of technocratic theory. Because the soul, angels, demons, and God Himself are neither quantifiably or empirically demonstrable entities, they have no place within a technocratic society. Science becomes the new expositor of miracles, revelation, and truth. In Brave New World Revisited, Aldous Huxley described this scientistic form of governance:

The older dictators fell because they could never supply their subjects with enough bread, enough circuses, enough miracles, and mysteries. Under a scientific dictatorship, education will really work’ with the result that most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution. There seems to be no good reason why a thoroughly scientific dictatorship should ever be overthrown. (116)

Paradoxical though it may seem, this is the occult, anti-theistic, anti-Christian tradition from whence Dominionism actually hails. Secular progressives often cite Dominionism as a “war against the Enlightenment.” However, a comparative examination of Dominionism and the revolutionary faith of the Enlightenment reveals more parallels than either side would care to admit.

Interestingly, Dominionism slightly inverts the traditional sociopolitical Utopian formula. Instead of being a secular movement with all of the sociological trappings of a religion, Dominionism is a religion with all of the sociological trappings of a secular movement. Nevertheless, like its sociopolitical Utopian predecessors, Dominionism pursues the neo-Gnostic objective of immanentizing the Eschaton. For the Dominionist, Jesus’ kingdom is a secular government established and maintained through secular institutions.

Dominionism also gives credence to the Gnostic doctrine of self-salvation. According to Dominionist theology, Jesus is either unwilling or unable to return to earth. If this is true, then Christ’s role as Savior is nullified. After all, the Scriptures state that Christ’s return will represent the final installment in humanity’s salvation. Hebrews 9:28 declares: “So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation” (emphasis added). According to Dominionism, man, not God, shall make His Kingdom come. Thus, the final installation of humanity’s salvation is left in the hands of man himself. In fact, John Hagee, a prominent Dominionist, has openly rejected Jesus as the Messiah in his latest book In Defense of Israel, (“Jesus did not come to be the Messiah?” no pagination). Instead, Hagee totally politicizes Jesus’ mission and characterizes Him as an “insurrectionist” (no pagination). Thus, Jesus becomes little more than a role model for revolutionaries.

Re-sculpting Jesus according to revolutionary designs is another Dominionist practice that can be traced back to the Enlightenment. Adam Weishaupt, an Enlightenment thinker and the founder of the infamous Bavarian Illuminati, presented his adherents with another Christ. This Christ preached more of a Jacobin gospel, advocating a radical Utopian revolution that would instantiate a heavenly kingdom within the ontological confines of this world.

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. Moreover, the French Revolution, which represented the nadir of the Enlightenment, supplied a working model for all subsequent socialist revolutionary movements. Dominionism is just one more installment in this ideological continuum.

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)

Instantiating the Kingdom of God was never man’s responsibility and to assert otherwise is to assert that God is no longer sovereign. Man becomes the center of the universe and beyond. In effect, Dominionism affirms the dictum of Protagoras: “Man is the measure of all things.” This is vintage anthropocentricism, which was a hallmark of the Enlightenment. Randall Herbert Balmer, a professor of American religious history, has correctly identified the anthropocentric elements of Dominionism (“Dominionism,” no pagination).

Moreover, the Dominionist mandate to immanentize the Eschaton rejects cognitio fidei. Man can no longer have faith for Christ’s return. He must transform God’s Kingdom, which is an object of faith, into an object of immanent experience. Dominionists cannot “walk by faith, not by sight.” To paraphrase Voegelin, the Dominionist must draw the transcendental elements of Christianity into a firmer grip than the cognitio fidei will afford.

Christian Reconstructionism is considered an example of Dominionism in reformed theology (“Dominionism,” no pagination). Christian Reconstructionism originated with Rousas John Rushdoony, a Calvinist theologian, philosopher, and historian (“Rousas John Rushdoony,” no pagination). Rushdoony argued that the American Revolution owed nothing to the Enlightenment (no pagination). Simultaneously, Rushdoony’s Christian Reconstructionism teaches cessationism, which rejects the operation of the charismatic gifts in this modern era (“Dominionism,” no pagination). The irony becomes clear when one considers the fact that cessationism is premised upon a “rationalistic, Enlightenment-era, unbiblical notion of ‘miracle'” (“Cessationism,” no pagination). Indeed, the rejection of miracles, along with all supernatural and supra-sensible phenomenons, was a hallmark of Enlightenment rationalism. David Hume, who was one of the Enlightenment’s leading theoreticians, argued against the existence of miracles in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. In this tract of radical empiricism, Hume defines a miracle as “a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent” (no pagination). Yet, Hume argues, the natural order is governed by laws established by “a firm and unalterable experience” (no pagination). Experientially, miracles boast fewer witnesses than natural phenomena. Thus, Hume asserts, the evidence against miracles will always outweigh the evidence for them:

Nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it ever happen in the common course of nature. It is no miracle that a man, seemingly in good health, should die on a sudden: because such a kind of death, though more unusual than any other, has yet been frequently observed to happen. But it is a miracle, that a dead man should come to life; because that has never been observed in any age or country. (No pagination)

Though this argument has come to comprise the intellectual arsenal of both atheists and cessationists alike, it is not as sound as it may seem. George Campbell, a fellow Enlightenment thinker, revealed that Hume’s argument was circular. Hume’s argument is premised upon the contention that natural laws are affirmed by the testimony of percipients everywhere without exception. However, Campbell observes that such testimony qualifies as exceptionless only if one completely precludes the occurrence of miracles (no pagination). Nevertheless, the Enlightenment-era rejection of miracles was adopted by Rushdoony and became a centerpiece of Christian Reconstructionism. Interestingly enough, the rejection of miracles was central to the authoritarian society proposed by Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan. Hobbes, who was a radical empiricist and materialist, rejected divine revelation on the grounds that such experiences could imperil so-called “civil order.” Hobbes begins with a critique of all claimants to supernatural revelation:

When God speaketh to man, it must be either immediately or by mediation of another man, to whom He had formerly spoken by Himself immediately. How God speaketh to a man immediately may be understood by those well enough to whom He hath so spoken; but how the same should be understood by another is hard, if not impossible, to know. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. (No pagination)

While Hobbes’ argument totters perilously on the edge of agnosticism, he never firmly commits himself to rejecting the Scriptures. Hobbes continues:

So that it is manifest that the teaching of the religion which God hath established, and the showing of a present miracle, joined together, were the only marks whereby the Scripture would have a true prophet. (No pagination)

Hobbes argues that the cessation of miracles upholds both the validity of the Scriptures and the divine right of the “governors of earth”:

Seeing therefore miracles now cease, we have no sign left whereby to acknowledge the pretended revelations or inspirations of any private man; nor obligation to give ear to any doctrine, farther than it is conformable to the Holy Scriptures , which since the time of our Saviour supply the place and sufficiently recompense the want of all other prophecy; and from which, by wise and learned interpretation, and careful ratiocination, all rules and precepts necessary to the knowledge of our duty both to God and man, without enthusiasm, or supernatural inspiration, may easily be deduced. And this Scripture is it out of which I am to take the principles of my discourse concerning the rights of those that are the supreme governors on earth of Christian Commonwealths, and of the duty of Christian subjects towards their sovereigns. (No pagination)

How convenient! Thus, Hobbes manages to satisfy both his materialistic and authoritarian propensities with a single argument. Hobbes was not the only authoritarian whose so-called “civil order” was threatened by miracles. Both communists and fascists expressed a characteristic derision for miracles and the supernatural. Such phenomenon defied quantification and, as such, posed a serious challenge to the scientistic suppositions of scientific socialism. Likewise, Christian Reconstructionism relies on cessationism because miracles, signs, and wonders could potentially challenge the political leaders and machinations that it seeks to enshrine.

As a derivation of Christian Reconstructionism, Dominionism exhibits a strand of cessationist thought. In cessationism, the Believer is presented with a deistic Christ. 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 reiterates 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.

Not surprisingly, the Promethean faith of early socialist revolutionaries was accompanied by an eschatology that closely resembles Dominionism’s postmillenial eschatology. The Promethean radical’s eschatology was underpinned by “the more pointed, millennial assumption that, on the new day that was dawning, the sun would never set” (Billington 6). Billington states that the tumult of the “French upheaval” birthed a “solar myth of the revolution” (6). This “solar myth” contended that “the sun was rising on a new era in which darkness would vanish forever” (6). This ideational contagion became embedded “at a level of consciousness that simultaneously interpreted something real and produced a new reality” (6). This “new reality,’ which was to be created by the hand of man himself, was symbolically encapsulated within “an all-seeing eye atop a pyramid over the words Novus Ordo Seclorum” (6). Again, the theme of an earthly kingdom constructed by and maintained through purely secular power becomes prevalent. Dominionism merely represents another variant of the sociopolitical Utopian aspiration to create a Novus Ordo Seclorum, albeit with an ostensibly Christian veneer.

Christian Reconstructionism is the “most prominent formulation” of Dominionism (“Dominionism,” no pagination). Christian Reconstructionism’s authoritarian character is evidenced by the fact that it posits Calvinism as the “basis for personal regeneration that is required to change people before changes occur in the broader culture” (“Christian Reconstructionism,” no pagination). Calvinism promoted a doctrine of predestination, which presented the following contentions:

That all humans are, inherently wicked and offend God;
That there is an elect that God chose to be saved regardless of their actions and how deserving;
That Jesus died just for those special elect, not for everyone;
That once God has chosen an elect they are saved by irresistible grace no matter what;
That these elect or Saints cannot fall from grace once saved. (Millegan 405)

According to Calvinism, there is only abundant life for some. Jesus Christ did not “set the captives” free. He merely affirmed the elitist pedigree of a few. In Haeckelian terms, supernatural selection is “aristocratic in the strictest sense of the word.” The vast majority of humanity can only expect death, both physical and spiritual, irrespective of the individual’s capacity for accepting for Christ as savior. With its mandate for a theocratic state ruled by a select few, Dominionism echoes such elitist sentiments.

Given the prevalence of Dominionist thinking in the Bush White House, this thread of Calvinist themes becomes even more significant. George W. Bush is a member of Skull and Bones, a secret society headquartered at Yale University. Yale was established and administrated by Calvinist clerics (Millegan 417). Bonesmen like Bush could possibly be guided by “Hyper-Calvinist beliefs of Hell, predestination, and infallible salvation mixed with potent duality of Western Ritual Magic tradition” (419). If such beliefs pervade the present administration, then it is only natural for the Bush White House to be so amicable to the Dominionist agenda.

The Bush White House’s acceptance of several Dominionist principles represents another point of convergence between Dominionism and the Enlightenment. One of the factions that has enjoyed political ascendancy under the Bush Administration is the neoconservative wing of the Establishment. The religious right, which is a breeding ground for Dominionism, has wholeheartedly embraced this wing of the Establishment. Randall Balmer observes: “The leaders of the religious right have led their sheep astray from the gospel of Jesus Christ to the false gospel of neoconservative ideology and into the maw of the Republican Party” (no pagination). This embrace is especially paradoxical in light of neoconservativism’s Enlightenment pedigree. James Kurth identifies neoconservativism as a continuation of the Enlightenment tradition:

From their origins (be it as followers of Leon Trotsky or of Leo Strauss), neo- conservatives have seen the Christian tradition as an alien, even a threatening, one. As for the classical tradition, their view of it has been formed by the decidedly untraditional interpretation of classical philosophy given by Strauss. The only Western tradition that the neoconservatives actually want to defend is the Enlightenment. They have wanted to defend it against attacks emanating from postmodernists, and in recent years, they have wanted to advance it in the rest of the world with the establishment of a kind of American empire. This latter is not a conservative project but a radical and revolutionary one. For the most part, it might be said that, with friends like the neoconservatives, Western civilization does not need enemies. (No pagination; emphasis added)

Numerous scholars have identified the ideological parallels between neoconservativism and the violent, revolutionary wing of the Enlightenment. Most notably, Claes G. Ryns exhaustively enumerates the various similarities between radical, Illuminist-bred Jacobins and neoconservatives in his book, America The Virtuous. Moreover, Lawrence Wilkerson, who helped Colin Powell assemble the highly politicized dossier against Iraq, characterized the neoconservatives as Jacobins:

They are not neo-cons. They are not new conservatives. They’re Jacobins. Their predecessor is French Revolution leader Maximilien Robespierre. And to say that these people are dead, dormant or lying quiescent is not encouraging because there are enough of them left. And it’s going to be incumbent on the rest of us, in this country at least, to watch these trends and make sure that their ugly head doesn’t rise up and cause more problems in the future. (Mascolo, no pagination)

Understandably, the religious right’s alliance with neoconservativism appears paradoxical. However, in light of Dominionism’s neo-Gnostic, Utopian trappings, the alliance is more appropriate than it seems. The resulting aberration from this hellish union is a violent, revolutionary movement with the potential of instantiating the same sort of technocratic Utopia envisioned by Enlightenment luminaries like Maximilien Robespierre, Condorcet, and the infamous Adam Weishaupt. In essence, Dominionism is a theistic incarnation of the French Revolution that proffers the kingdom of a Jacobin Christ. While secular progressives routinely debate with rhetoricians from the religious right, the ideological skirmishes between the two are superficial at best. Both polar extremes have transformed the culture war into a Hegelian dialectic. The synthesis of these two ideational entities is a scientific dictatorship.

Political Prostitution: McCain Woos the Dominionists

One organization that has been described as a Dominionist machination is the Council for National Policy (“Taking Over the Republican Party,” no pagination). David D. Kirkpatrick describes the Council for National Policy (CNP) as follows:

The council was founded in 1981, just as the modern conservative movement began its ascendance. The Rev. Tim LaHaye, an early Christian conservative organizer and the best-selling author of the ”Left Behind” novels about an apocalyptic Second Coming, was a founder. His partners included Paul Weyrich, another Christian conservative political organizer who also helped found the Heritage Foundation. They said at the time that they were seeking to create a Christian conservative alternative to what they believed was the liberalism of the Council on Foreign Relations. (No pagination)

This description is terribly incomplete. What Kirkpatrick fails to mention (either out of ignorance or partisan bias) is the fact that the first Governing Board of the CNP had three CFR members: Dr. Edward Teller, George F. Gilder, and Guy Vander Jagt (Aho, pagination). Two later CNP members, Arnaud De Borchgrave and J. Peter Grace, were also CFR members (no pagination). Given these dubious associations, the CNP’s opposition to the CFR would appear to be somewhat disingenuous.

The CNP’s conservative veneer is even less convincing. One of the chief financiers of Paul Weyrich’s Heritage Foundation is Richard Mellon Scaife. Washington Post journalists Robert G. Kaiser and Ira Chinoy reveal Scaife’s ties to this so-called “right-wing” organization:

The Heritage Foundation became an important part of the right’s community-building efforts. Scaife first contributed to Heritage in 1974. Soon afterward, using money from Scaife, Heritage established its resource bank, a compilation of conservative organizations, which from 1982 was published in the Directory of Public Policy Organizations, a guide to the new right-wing establishment. The current edition lists 300 groups; 111 have received grants from Scaife, 76 of them in 1998. Heritage, organized by former staff assistants to Republican lawmakers whose goal was to influence both Congress and the news media with a stream of brief, meaty position papers on issues of the day, became Scaife’s favorite beneficiary. When it began to make a mark in the mid-1970s, Joseph Coors, the beer magnate, was commonly credited as its chief financial patron. Coors did put up the first $250,000. But within two years, according to Heritage officials, Scaife had given more than twice as much, and he has kept on giving ever since – more than $23 million in all, or about $34 million in inflation-adjusted, current dollars. At Heritage the joke was, “Coors gives six-packs; Scaife gives cases.” With Scaife’s early contributions, Heritage could thrive. In 1976, Heritage’s third year of operation, Scaife gave $420,000, or 42 percent of the foundation’s total income of $1,008,557. This early support was “absolutely critical,” said the president of the foundation, Edwin J. Feulner Jr. Scaife continues to give generously to Heritage – $1.3 million in 1998. But Heritage took in $43 million last year, so his gift represented just 3 percent of its income. (No pagination)

While Scaife has financially supported ostensibly conservative organizations like the Heritage Foundation, he has also donated considerable sums of money to left-wing affiliations. These include Planned Parenthood:

Scaife has long favored abortion rights, to the chagrin of many of those he has supported. In the first years of his philanthropy he stuck to a pattern set by his mother and sister and gave millions to Planned Parenthood and other population control groups, though most such giving stopped in the 1970s. (No pagination)

Why would Scaife finance both conservative and liberal organizations? More importantly, why would CNP member Weyrich accept money from someone who openly financed causes that most Christians find morally objectionable? These actions bespeak a decidedly pragmatic Weltanschauung among prominent CNP members and their associates. Ultimately, the CNP is neither Christian nor conservative. It is just another conduit for elitist interests. The organization’s façade is designed to draw in Christians and conservatives. Thoroughly seduced by the CNP’s traditional veneer, these parties can be mobilized in support of elitist agendas.

Just how much political capital does the CNP wield? Evidently, the organization has enough power to attract the sole Republic candidate for the 2008 presidential election: John McCain. In hopes of garnering Dominionist support for his presidential bid, McCain addressed the CNP in March 2008 (Hallow, “McCain courts top conservatives,” no pagination). McCain’s appearance at the CNP was considered a flop by many of the attendees (no pagination). Those critical of McCain included CNP participants Janice Crouse and Richard A. Viguerie (no pagination). However, Crouse stated that McCain might receive the support he was looking for because he was considered the only real viable alternative to Barak Obama and Hilary Clinton (no pagination). McCain may begin to cater to the desires of the CNP and other Dominionists as a means of securing victory over his Democrat competitor.

Covert Operations and Dominionist Activism

Dominionists are not content to leave other people alone. Their doctrine requires that they impose their Utopian vision upon the rest of humanity. Dominionist activism can take many different forms. One of the most sinister manifestations of Dominionist activism is covert operations. One Dominionist involved in the covert realm is CNP participant Richard Viguerie. Viguerie was also a member of Korean intelligence agent Tongsun Park’s Georgetown Club (Trento 171). Park was a major player in the Koreagate scandal that shook Congress in the 1970s (171). Viguerie was collaborating with Park and the Korean CIA at the time (171).

Viguerie became deeper entrenched in the covert world in 1979 when Thomas Clines, the former CIA covert operations agent, moved the Egyptian American Transport and Services Corporation (EATSCO) to 7777 Leesburg Pike, the home of Viguerie Company (171). The EATSCO offices were Viguerie’s tenants (171). EATSCO was part of a private intelligence network that was created to provide the CIA’s covert activity branch, known as the Directorate of Operations, with a means of evading Congressional oversight. 7777 Leesburg Pike became the home of the private CIA (172). Many of Viguerie’s tenants were operatives of Edwin Wilson, the architect of the private intelligence network (171-72). It should come as little surprise that many people that fall within the Dominionist orbit, such as CNP participants Ollie North and John Singlaub, have also been involved in some of the most infamous intelligence crimes that make up a large portion of America’s secret history. This may eventually cause the public to associate Christians with the dark practitioners of deep politics. Doubtless, the activists within the Dominionist camp will slip into the shadows while innocent Christians suffer the backlash.

Theocratic Tyranny: Huckabee’s Modest Proposal

At a public forum preceding the Michigan primary, presidential candidate Mike Huckabee generated a considerable degree of controversy by presenting a mandate for an ostensibly “biblical” renovation of the Constitution. Journalist Domenico Montanaro recounts the presentation of this mandate:

“[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it’s a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that’s what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards,” Huckabee said, referring to the need for a constitutional human life amendment and an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. (No pagination)

At best, Huckabee’s proposal for the “biblical reform” of the Constitution was unnecessary. The Constitution already meets “God’s standards.” It is premised upon the biblical principle of imago viva Dei. Acknowledging man as a being made in the image of God, the Constitution established a form of governance that would observe and protect the rights that God had endowed upon humanity. Benjamin Franklin, a signer of both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, declared: “Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature.”

It is true that Benjamin Franklin, along with some of the Founding Fathers, was a deist. However, as is evidenced by this statement and the content of the Freedom Documents, all of the Founding Fathers acknowledged a transcendent moral law emanating from a transcendent Creator. The immutability of this transcendent moral law was contingent upon the immutability of the Author with which it originated. In Malachi 3:6, the Lord states: “I change not.” Likewise, man’s rights “change not.” In the absence of an unchanging God, moral law is susceptible to the flux of subjectivism and relativism. C.S. Lewis explains the dilemma that this would pose for democratic governance:

The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law which overarches rulers and ruled alike. Subjectivism about values is eternally incompatible with democracy. We and our rulers are of one kind only so long as we are subject to one law. But if there is no Law of Nature, the ethos of any society is the creation of its rulers, educators and conditioners; and every creator stands above and outside his own creation. (81)

Establishing a government that acknowledged “some objective moral law” was precisely the goal of the American Revolution. John Quincy Adams, the sixth President of the United States, eloquently voiced this contention: “The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.” There is an important distinction to be made here. The American Revolution instantiated a theocentric form of governance, not a theocracy. While the Constitution was underpinned by the biblical principle of imago viva Dei, it also acknowledged the biblical concept of free will. Christ never coerced anyone to follow Him and the life of faith was always a matter of choice. Thus, Americanism made allowances for the coexistence of faiths and instantiated the freedom of religion. In light of these facts, Huckabee’s mandate for supposed “biblical” reforms was historically incoherent and unnecessary.

At worst, Huckabee’s mandate was an endorsement of some theocratic form of totalitarianism. This fact was not lost on several of Huckabee’s fellow Republicans. In National Review Online, Republican Lisa Schiffren critiqued Huckabee’s call for “biblical” reform:

Mike Huckabee is going to force those of us who have wanted more religion in the town square to reexamine the merits of strict separation of church and state. He is the best advertisement ever for the ACLU. Even if you share his ultimate views on the definition of marriage, or the desirability of abortion on demand. (No pagination)

When a presidential candidate’s ideas alarm members of both the so-called “left” and the so-called “right,” it is clear that his political aspirations demand some serious critical analysis. There is good reason for people to be suspicious of Huckabee. His theocratic rhetoric echoes the doctrines of Dominionism. Huckabee’s Dominionist propensities are made evident by his adherence to neo-Confederate ideas. Huckabee’s neo-Confederate sentiments came out on January 17, 2008, when the former Arkansas Governor was addressing voters in South Carolina (Fiegel, no pagination). Huckabee told his audience:

I know what would happen if somebody comes to my state in Arkansas and tells us what to do, it doesn’t matter what it is, tell us how to run our schools, tell us how to raise our kids, tell us what to do with our flag – you want to come tell us what to do with the flag, we’d tell them what to do with the pole. (No pagination)

Huckabee repeated these remarks in a speech delivered to an audience in Florence (no pagination). The bridge between neo-Confederate ideology and Dominionism was built by Rousas John Rushdoony, the father of Christian Reconstructionism. Many researchers claim that Christian Reconstructionism is merely a type of Dominionism, citing the fact Reconstructionists frequently use the term “dominion” (“Christian Reconstructionism,” no pagination). Rushdoony was heavily influenced by the writings of Robert L. Dabney, the chaplain to Confederate General Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson (Potok, no pagination). Dabney’s writings portrayed the South as a highly moral and Godly society that was unjustly oppressed by a decadent North (no pagination). Dabney’s influence on Rushdoony can be seen in his book, Institute of Biblical Law (no pagination). In that book, Rushdoony advocated segregation and adamantly opposed interracial marriage (no pagination). As Rushdoony’s influence spread into evangelical churches, the poison of Confederate nationalism was injected into America’s Christian community (no pagination). It should come as little surprise that the Dominionist model of society is similar in many ways to the antebellum South.

This is truly ironic, given the fact that there is a body of evidence that suggests that neo-Confederate ideology is merely a revival of anti-Christian Celtic paganism. Neo-Confederates believe that the establishment of a Confederate republic is not possible without a revival of Anglo-Celtic culture (Pansler, no pagination). Neo-Confederates also venerate Confederate Civil War Generals, a practice that is very similar to the Celtic worship of warrior-gods (no pagination). Dominionism’s compatibility with this modern variant of paganism underscores the belief system’s anti-Christian character. In addition to his neo-Confederate affinities, Huckabee also embraces ideologues of the neo-Gnostic, sociopolitical Utopian tradition. Arguably, globalism is a modern incarnation of the Gnostic aspiration to immanentize the Eschaton. One of Huckabee’s selections for his White House staff was an individual with an impeccable globalist pedigree. In an interview on Wolf Blitzer’s Late Edition, Huckabee revealed that Council on Foreign Relations president Richard Haass was one of his “principal foreign policy advisors” (“Mike Huckabee’s adviser is president of the CFR, Richard N Haass,” no pagination). The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an outgrowth of the Royal Institute of International Affairs in England (Quigley 132). In turn, the Royal Institute of International Affairs was birthed by the semisecret organizations called Round Table Groups (132). Formed by a network of adherents to the imperialistic vision of Cecil Rhodes, the Round Table Groups were committed to the formation of a global government under British rule. The CFR hails from this tradition, as is evidenced by the organization’s advocacy of globalism and the subordination of all nation-states to an omnipotent supra-national governmental entity. Of course, such a state of affairs would mandate the weakening and eventual obliteration of national sovereignty. Haass candidly recommends that nations adopt just such a course of action. In an article in the Taipei Times, Haas asserts:

For 350 years, sovereignty — the notion that states are the central actors on the world stage and that governments are essentially free to do what they want within their own territory but not within the territory of other states — has provided the organizing principle of international relations. The time has come to rethink this notion. (No pagination)

According to Haass, the notion of national sovereignty must be re-examined because the global stage is now occupied by a “larger number of powerful non-sovereign and at least partly (and often largely) independent actors” (no pagination). These include non-governmental organizations (NGOs), banks, private equity funds, global and regional institutions, and even overtly criminal entities like drug cartels and terrorists (no pagination). Haass asserts that, because the activities of these supra-national entities have a definite impact on sovereign states, the world requires “new mechanisms” to allow the participation of “actors other than states” in both “regional and global governance” (no pagination).

Citing national governments’ increased acquiescence to WTO rulings, Haass also argues that “states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function” (no pagination). Presenting the Kyoto Protocol as another case in point, Haass declares:

All of this suggests that sovereignty must be redefined if states are to cope with globalization. At its core, globalization entails the increasing volume, velocity, and importance of flows — within and across borders — of people, ideas, greenhouse gases, goods, dollars, drugs, viruses, e-mails, weapons and a good deal else, challenging one of sovereignty’s fundamental principles: the ability to control what crosses borders in either direction. Sovereign states increasingly measure their vulnerability not to one another, but to forces beyond their control. Globalization thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves, because they cannot insulate themselves from what goes on elsewhere. Sovereignty is no longer a sanctuary. (No pagination)

Haass concludes that, while national sovereignty should be maintained as an institution, it should be made more malleable. After all, if parameters of national sovereignty are sufficiently pliable, then globalization can continue unabated:

The goal should be to redefine sovereignty for the era of globalization, to find a balance between a world of fully sovereign states and an international system of either world government or anarchy.

The basic idea of sovereignty, which still provides a useful constraint on violence between states, needs to be preserved. But the concept needs to be adapted to a world in which the main challenges to order come from what global forces do to states and what governments do to their citizens rather than from what states do to one another. (No pagination)

Such a conception of sovereignty can be synopsized with one word: pageantry. If the parameters of national sovereignty are elastic enough to be circumvented by some supra-national authority, then national sovereignty exists in name only. Certainly, sovereignty would still exist, but only within supra-national entities that could enforce their edicts with impunity. All of his euphemistic banter aside, Haass’ pedigree as CFR president betrays his elitist objectives. Such objectives would have found a promising catalyst for implementation within a Huckabee White House. Ultimately, the dismantling of America’s national sovereignty and her amalgamation into a global government are the sociopolitical manifestations of broader Utopian aspirations. They are necessary steps in realizing the neo-Gnostic vision of a world where the flux of history has been immobilized in a state of Utopian permanence. Given the neo-Gnostic propensities of Dominionism, it comes as little surprise that Huckabee would have surrounded himself with those of the globalist persuasion.

Of course, Huckabee did not win the Republican nomination. Interestingly enough, Huckabee partially blamed this failure on “the desire of Christian leaders to be ‘kingmakers'” (Hallow, “Huckabee cites power of ‘kingmakers’,” no pagination). Who were these aspiring “kingmakers” that Huckabee blamed for his defeat? The failed presidential nominee elaborates:

“Rank-and-file evangelicals supported me strongly, but a lot of the leadership did not,” the former Arkansas governor says. “Let’s face it, if you’re not going to be king, the next best thing is to be the kingmaker. And if the person gets there without you, you become less relevant.”

Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson backed Rudolph W. Giuliani; American Value President and former presidential hopeful Gary Bauer endorsed Sen. John McCain; and Family Research Council President Tony Perkins remained neutral, even as Mr. Huckabee was wowing their supporters and winning the values voter straw polls they organized. (No pagination)

Pat Robertson is a prominent Dominionist, as is evidenced by his “explicit emphasis on the need to restore Christians to leadership roles in American society mirrors … a dominionist impulse in contemporary evangelicalism” (Barron 12). Gary Bauer has been a participant in the CNP, a Dominionist organization (“Taking Over the Republican Party,” no pagination). The Family Research Council is yet another organization that has been identified as Dominionist in character(“The Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party,” no pagination). Evidently, the “kingmakers” that Huckabee failed to impress were the neo-Gnostic jihadists of Dominionism. The “king” they hope to enthrone is a false messiah who promises to immanentize the Eschaton.

Worldly Kings for Worldly Kingdoms

Dominionism has managed to consolidate sizable quantities of political capital in the emergent world order. The efforts of McCain and Huckabee to woo Dominionist interests provide two cases in point. At the same time, the Dominionists represent only one group of competitors in a much larger deep political system. Their secular progressive counterparts have also accumulated considerable amounts of political capital. The jihad between these two camps of sociopolitical Utopianism is facilitating a Hegelian synthesis, the outcome of which will synchronize with the neo-Gnostic vision of an Eschaton within the ontological confines of this world. In 1 John 2:17, the Apostle writes: “And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.” Likewise, the worldly kingdom sought by these sociopolitical Utopians will pass away. Given the sad fact that neither side intends on doing the will of the Lord, neither the Dominionists nor the secular progressives will abide forever. Instead, they share the fate of the doomed kosmos that they have sought to instantiate.

Sources Cited

About the Authors

Phillip D. Collins acted as the editor for The Hidden Face of Terrorism and co-authored the book The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship with his brother Paul Collins. Both books are available at Phillip has also written articles for News With Views, Conspiracy Archive, and the Vexilla Regis Journal.

In 1999, Phillip earned an Associate degree of Arts and Science from Clark State Community College. In 2006, he earned a bachelor’s degree with majors in communication studies and liberal studies along with a minor in philosophy from Wright State University.

Phillip worked as a staff writer for a weekly news publication, the Vandalia Drummer, between late 2007 and 2011. During his tenure with the paper, he earned several accolades.

In 2011, he was inducted into the Media Honor Roll by the Ohio School Board Association for his extensive coverage of the Vandalia-Butler School District. That very same year, the Ohio Newspaper Association bestowed an Osman C. Hooper Newspaper Award upon Phillip for Best Photo. In addition, the City of Vandalia officially proclaimed that November 7, 2011 would be known as “Phillip Collins Day.” This honor was bestowed upon Phillip for his tireless coverage of the City and community.

Shortly after bringing his journalism career to a close, Phillip received another Osman C. Hooper Newspaper Award in the category of In-depth Reporting. This award was given to Phillip for his investigative work over the death of U.S. Marine Maria Lauterbach and the resultant Department of Defense reforms concerning sexual assault and rape. The case drew national attention and received TV coverage by major media organs.

Phillip currently works for the Wyoming Department of Corrections, where he earned the distinction of Employee of the Quarter for the third quarter of 2013. Phillip still works as a freelance journalist and is currently collaborating with his brother on a follow-up to The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship.

Paul David Collins is the author of The Hidden Face of Terrorism and the co-author of The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship. In 1999, he earned his Associate of Arts and Science degree from Clark State Community College. In 2006, he received his bachelor’s degree with a major in Liberal Studies and a minor in Political Science from Wright State University. He worked as a professional journalist for roughly four years.

From 2008 to 2012, Paul covered local news for several Times Community News publications, including the Enon Messenger, the New Carlisle Sun, the Tipp City Herald, the Kettering/Oakwood Times, the Beavercreek News Current, the Vandalia Drummer, the Springboro Sun, the Englewood Independent, the Fairborn Daily Herald, and the Xenia Daily Gazette.

Paul also wrote for other local papers, including the Enon Eagle, the New Carlisle News, and the Lusk Herald. In addition to his work in the realm of mainstream, Paul has published several articles concerning the topics of deep politics and elite deviancy. Those articles have appeared in Terry Melanson’s online Conspiracy Archive, Paranoia magazine, Vexilla Regis Journal, and Nexus magazine. He currently works as a correctional officer with the Wyoming Department of Corrections.