S.R. Shearer

In war, truth is often the first casualty.

November 28, 2001

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
- George Orwell

Rex quondam, rex que futurus
Restitutor Orbis

Sir Thomas Malory
1470 A.D.


On the 13th of November, 2001, Counterpunch Magazine published an article by Douglas Valentine entitled, "Phoenix And The Anatomy Of Terror." In 1969 and 1970 I became peripherally involved in the Phoenix Program in Vietnam as an intelligence officer (a captain) attached to the 525th Intelligence Group. Some of you who are familiar with the war (or who were there) have probably heard of this unit. At any rate, once or twice a month I traveled to Vung Tau near the South China Sea to brief Phoenix officers concerning intelligence threats they would be facing in the districts and provinces they had been assigned to. All this to say that - while I cannot speak directly to matters concerning Phoenix (I am not permitted to) - I can pretty much vouch on a personal basis for what Valentine has to say.

The author as an intelligence officer at the Phoenix training center in Vung Tau, South Vietnam - 1969. He is holding a Romanian AKM(which was distinguished from the Chinese AK-47 by its unique pistol grip).

Valentine, who has written extensively on the Phoenix program, says that the Bush Administration has begun to set up a "counter-terrorist" organization similar to the Phoenix program that operated in Vietnam. It will operate as an integral part of Governor Tom Ridge's "Office of Homeland Security" (OHS). If that is true, than God help us all.

Valentine says that while the OHS appeared immediately after the tragic events of 11 September, "like a rabbit pulled from a magician's star-spangled hat," it's important to understand that it has been at least four years in the making. Based on studies and predictions that a catastrophic terror attack was inevitable, the U.S. Commission on National Security in the 21st Century (co-chaired by former Senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman) had proposed an OHS-type entity patterned after Phoenix in January of 2001.

The Phoenix Program originated out of the turmoil and confusion of the Vietnam War. Valentine says that the CIA believed that in order to win the war, it had to destroy the Viet Cong's political and administrative organization and root out its supporters throughout the country - kind of like the way the "War on Terror" is doing now to the Taliban in Afghanistan. The CIA based this belief on the assumption that opposing ideological factions were battling for the loyalty of the "complacent masses," and that the VC were winning the war for the hearts and minds of the "masses" through the use of propaganda and "selective terror," meaning the cold-blooded murder and mutilation of government officials.

In response, according to Valentine, the CIA created its own counter-terror program - Phoenix. As part of this effort, the CIA began constructing a massive "gulag archipelago" of secret interrogation centers throughout South Vietnam's 44 provinces. Four regional centers were also built, and an existing National Interrogation Center (NIC) was modernized in Saigon. I visited the NIC on "intelligence matters" on many different occasions when I was in Saigon.

Phoenix was run essentially by a cadre of "secret police" advised by the CIA and American military intelligence officers. Informants were recruited in every district, village, and hamlet in Vietnam. On the basis of an accusation made by a single anonymous informant, a VC suspect or sympathizer could be arrested and detained indefinitely. They were held until they confessed (often under torture); and then they were sent to Stalinist internal security tribunals (like the ones Bush is proposing) for "further disposition."

This is exactly what the OHS is proposing to set up in this country, and America has a lot of experience in such matters; the CIA has been operating Phoenix-like programs throughout its system of "client states" for years now, so operating one now in the United States would be a cinch - we reap what we sow eventually. This is called "blowback." Valentine says that like the Phoenix program in Vietnam, the OHS will establish field offices in the 50 states and all of America's major cities. In order to achieve its elusive goal of "internal security," the OHS, like Phoenix, will need to extend its informants nets throughout the country. Inevitably, every town will probably be required to form an OHS Committee which will be comprised of citizens that the OHS has deemed politically suitable. The job of these committees will be to process reports by "concerned citizens" (i.e., informants) about the activities of "suspected citizens." Perhaps once a week these reports will be forwarded to the OHS Committee at the county level. The country committee will review the reports and send the most urgent ones to the state committee. At each level, the reports will be filtered through an ideological filter.

What makes such a system especially dangerous is that Attorney General John Ashcroft has vowed to "arrest and detain any suspected terrorist who has violated the law," and has further promised "airtight surveillance" of them - but has yet to define what a "suspected terrorist" is. This is what happened in Vietnam too. There was never any consensus about the definition of a VC sympathizer; at best, it was tacitly understood by the ideologues, and the security forces under their control, that a person was either "for us" or "against us." Moreover, it wasn't enough to be just "for us" in a passive sense; one had to be actively "against them."

So the definition of a terrorist suspect is deliberately left open, paving the way for political repression. The anti-terror legislation passed by Congress and signed by Bush allows for secret searches of the homes of people who meet the nebulous criteria of "suspected terrorist."

So now, as you begin reading the following article, read it with all this in mind - and bear in mind that the people we are talking about in the article - the "WILLING POPULATION" that the article references, will most likely be those people [mainly PROMISE KEEPERS-like Christians (more about this in the article)] who will be sitting on the OHS committees throughout the country - people who will be passing on YOUR loyalty - so that now you begin to understand what the Lord meant when He said:

"But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and ... ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them." (Mark 13:9)




Max Mell, a contemporary poet, has said that underneath the thin "egalitarianism" of today's American culture and all of its shallow, perfunctory pandering to the "worth of the common man" lies a great longing for that which is messianic; for a savior - a kind of Resitiutor Orbis who will emerge and rescue mankind from the chaos and confusion of this present evil world; and this is especially true among Christians, many of whom, sadly, hold the concepts of what we today call "democracy" in UTTER contempt. To their mind, messianic leadership (by which they mean, "charismatic" leadership) - not democracy - is the ideal. To such people, the messy and disordered condition of "politics as usual" - with all its sordid, back room deal-making and compromises - is a disgusting and vulgar thing, something that has been made all the more loathsome in recent years by people like Bill and Hillary Clinton and their coterie of radical feminists, militant homosexuals, and effete multiculturalists.


Mell thinks that it would be a great mistake to believe that such thinking is nothing more than a silly "redneck" kind of aberration that haunts only the fringe elements of American culture. He believes that the longing for such a "messiah-king" rests on a solid bedrock of Western tradition and is very widespread in the culture at large. It's a yearning that the forces of modernity can hide and gloss over, but one which they have utterly failed to stamp out. It is too deeply embedded in the Western psyche to be readily rooted out - and so much so that British writers Norris J. Lacy and Geoffrey Ashe can say that the longing for such a "messiah-king" has been "... a persistently imagined and hoped for political goal of countless numbers of people down through the centuries" - a kind of hunger for a messianic leader who, as Carolly Erickson, a professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara, writes, "... has the ability to dwell in the circle of the miraculous." Indeed, IT IS PRECISELY THIS KIND OF "MESSIAH-KING" (and the concomitant idealized figure of "manhood" that inevitably accompanies such a concept - the kind out from which such ancient mythical heroes as Lancelot, Tristan, Parsifal, and Roland were fashioned) THAT MODERN-DAY CHRISTIAN GROUPS SUCH AS THE "PROMISE KEEPERS" HAVE MADE SUCH A PHANTASM OUT OF.

This kind of thinking - the kind that Max Mell, Norris Lacy, Geoffrey Ashe and Carolly Erickson describe, the kind that generates "messiah-kings" - seems to present itself on a regular (if not cyclical) basis in the history of Western Civilization, producing in its wake the Barbarossas, the Napoleons, and the Hitlers of Western Christendom. It's a phenomenon that inevitably bubbles to the surface in times of great peril when it seems that only "decisive" leadership can carry the day - and it is helped along when it is has been preceded by a time of cultural dissonance, demoralization, and disappointment; for example, the cultural and economic turmoil and confusion that accompanied the socialist governments of the Weimar Republic that antedated Hitler's rise to power in Germany, and the so-called "Reign of Terror" that preceded Napoleon's seizure of power in France in the last decade of the Eighteenth Century.


The question that now fairly begs to be asked is, Is such a phenomenon beginning to reveal itself again in the snarled course of events following the calamity of September 11, 2001? - a course of events that possesses the power and vigor to generate a new Napoleon or a new Hitler. Have we reached one of those points in the so-called "historical process" that could lend itself to such an outcome?

Well-known academician Ian Kershaw says that - at least in the modern world - there are three elements necessary for the emergence of a new messiah-king: (1) the existence of an actual person around which a "messiah myth" can be built; (2) a propaganda machine or "PR" mechanism capable of generating the "mythos" which must accompany any new messiah-king; and most importantly, (3) a willing population ready to accept the new messiah. In this connection, one must bear in mind that, according to Kershaw, messianic leadership is as much the product of the people over which it takes hold as it is of the internal charisma of the man who ultimately comes to hold messianic power; that there must exist a symbiosis between the two (i.e., between leader and follower) so that - in the end - the one cannot exist without the other. And perhaps even more than that - THAT IT IS THE PEOPLE (i.e., the "messiah-king's" followers) THAT PRODUCE THE HITLERS OF THIS WORLD RATHER THAN THE OTHER WAY AROUND; that ultimately, people get what they deserve (and want) insofar as the Adolf Hitlers of this earth are concerned; that the people are far more responsible for producing the Hitlers of this world, than the Hitlers are of producing themselves.

Finally, Kershaw says that there must also exist on a general basis a kind of "READY-MADE TERRAIN of pre-existing beliefs, prejudices, and phobias" which, when taken together, can provide the societal foundation necessary for the emergence of the new "messiah-king." [Please see Ian Kershaw, The Hitler Myth; Kershaw is a professor of history at the University of Nottingham in England; please also see J.P. Stern (Hitler, the Fuhrer and the People) and R. Semmler (Goebbels: The Man Next To Hitler).]


What we propose to show in this article is THAT ALL THREE OF THOSE ELEMENTS NECESSARY TO THE RISE OF A NEW "MESSIAH-KING" ARE NOW IN PLACE IN TODAY'S AMERICAN SOCIETY [i.e., (1) the existence of an actual person around which a "messiah myth" can be built; (2) a propaganda machine or "PR" mechanism capable of generating the "mythos" which must accompany any new "messiah-king;" and most importantly, (3) a willing population ready to accept the new messiah.]. IN ADDITION, THERE ALSO EXISTS A "READY-MADE TERRAIN OF PRE-EXISTING BELIEFS, PREJUDICES, AND PHOBIAS" WHICH, WHEN TAKEN TOGETHER, PROVIDE THE SOCIETAL FOUNDATION NECESSARY FOR THE EMERGENCE OF A NEW HITLER-FIGURE.

ACCORDINGLY, WE WILL SHOW THAT THERE IS (JUST AS KERSHAW PREDICTED THERE WOULD BE) A PATHOLOGY ALREADY AFOOT THAT IS LEADING INEXORABLY TO THE EMERGENCE OF A NEW HITLER-FIGURE, ONLY THIS TIME IT WILL BE A HITLER NOT JUST WITH A EUROPEAN REACH, BUT ONE WITH A WORLD-WIDE REACH, AND THERE WILL BE NO ONE ABLE TO STOP HIM. [And please take note of the fact that in demonstrating all this, there will be no need for us to resort to "hidden knowledge" or "secret information" available only to us and to no one else. The material we will use to demonstrate this point is freely available in the public sphere. Believe me, brothers and sisters, we are a lot further down the road to the "end of the age" than most of us care to admit; and if we don't see it, it's because we choose not to see it.]


"... the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light." (Luke 16:8)




We begin our article by examining whether or not there exists in this country a "READY-MADE TERRAIN of pre-existing beliefs, prejudices, and phobias" capable of nourishing the growth of a "Fuhrer Myth;" and - more to the point - where in our society will we find this "READY-MADE TERRAIN of pre-existing beliefs, prejudices, and phobias" that would be conducive to the emergence of an Antichrist-like figure?

One thing is for sure, this "terrain" would of necessity have to lend itself in a very fundamental way to the nourishment of (or "absolutist") belief systems if only because the Antichrist will not be a person very much given to the habits of democracy - and, if that's the case, those who will form his core constituency will likewise not be particularly enamored or given to these habits either.

Where, then, in our society is absolutism (i.e., political or religious systems that are ANTI-DEMOCRATIC in nature) still practiced? Where does it still hold sway? Some people, of course, would say, "NOWHERE! We are a democracy, and the institutions that prevail in our country are democratic institutions." But, sadly, that's not really so anymore. The truth is, there's not much democracy left in this country beyond the surface symbolism that still exists, a fact that induced Michael Parenti to comment that one -

"... might better think of ours as a dual political system. First, there is the symbolic political system centered around electoral and representative activities including party conflicts, voter turnout, political personalities, public pronouncements, official role-playing and certain ambiguous presentations of some of the public issues which bestir presidents, governors, mayors and their respective legislatures. Then there is the substantive political system, involving multi-billion dollar contracts, tax write-offs, protections, rebates, grants, loss compensations, subsidies, leases, giveaways and the whole vast process of budgeting, legislating, advising, regulating, protecting and servicing major producer interests - now bending or ignoring the law on behalf of the powerful, now applying it with full punitive vigor against heretics and 'troublemakers'. The symbolic system is highly visible, taught in schools, discussed by academicians, gossiped about by newsmen. The substantive system is seldom heard of or accounted for."

Still, as Parenti acknowledges, there remains - at least on a POLITICAL level - the requirement of rendering a certain amount of "lip service" to the concepts of democracy, and it would be very difficult indeed for anyone to ignore this necessity - i.e., the imperative for political figures to make an open show of devotion to these concepts - without being immediately "run over" by the masses.


Both of these areas (i.e., the world of religion, and the world of commerce) are extremely important because - as we will soon discover - it is out of the business world that we will find the "PR" or propaganda mechanisms necessary to the sustenance of the kind of mythos necessary to a messiah-cult, and it is out of the world of religion that we will discover a population "willing" to embrace the coming messiah-like figure - i.e., the Antichrist. And if that's the case, then we have discovered two of the three elements Kershaw, Stern, and Semmler say are necessary for the emergence of a new Hitler: (1) the propaganda mechanism, and (2) the "willing population."


Some might be surprised by our contention that it is in the business world that we will discover the "propaganda mechanism" necessary for the sustenance of a new Hitler mythology. Wouldn't it be more proper for us to be looking at the media? - that the two (i.e., the media and the business community) are not necessarily the same. Well, fifty years ago, that may have been true.

At that time it probably could NOT be said that the business community controlled the press (or the media) - and for that reason, the media acted as a genuine bulwark against the emergence of a Hitler-like figure. While the business community certainly controlled more than its fair share of the media at that time, there still was a robust labor and anti-corporate press in the country. Not any more; not after the Vietnam War - when the elites lost control of the country (and the war) because they did not totally control the press.

After the Vietnam debacle, the elites set about buying up the press (there is, after all, a reason why Westinghouse, General Electric and other similar corporations (that normally would have NO business interest in acquiring a radio and TV network) spent millions and millions of dollars buying up CBS, NBC, ABC etc. The elite business community wanted total control of the press - and today they have it. That's why there is no longer any REAL discussion of economic matters in this country, why there is no REAL discussion of the merits of free trade, the FTAA, NAFTA, the WTO, etc. It's not allowed! There can be plenty of discussion on social issues - abortion, feminization, race issues, etc. - but there can be no real discussion on the matters that make the elites "roll and go" - like the issues we just enumerated. That's off limits now!

Today the press belongs "lock, stock, and barrel" to the elite business community - AND THIS COMMUNITY IS A VERY ANTI-DEMOCRATIC COMMUNITY INDEED, AND IT IS, THEREFORE, WITHOUT A DOUBT A COMMUNITY THAT WOULD SUPPORT A "MASS MOVEMENT" (IF ONE COULD BE FOUND) THAT WOULD BE READY-MADE TERRAIN FOR THE EMERGENCE OF AN ANTI-CHRIST-FIGURE. The very anti-democratic nature of the business community lends itself to such an outcome.


And there certainly can be no real doubt as to the nature of the corporate systems of authority that predominate in the business sphere; the fact is, they are so "dictatorial" (some would even say "tyrannical") that if they were practiced in the political realm, the people who practiced them would be "run out of town on a rail." Now in saying all this, it's not our purpose to advocate "socialism in the workplace;" it's simply to say that - more than most of us care to admit to ourselves - the world we live in is much more autocratic than it is advertised to be, and while the "worth of the common man" is celebrated in our mythology, democracy does not touch our everyday working-lives quite as much as we imagine. Moreover, unlike the world of politics, there is no need to give "lip service" to the ideals of "democracy" in the business world. Absolutism is accepted as a "given" in the corporate world - or does one imagine, even for an instant, that Ford, General Motors, IBM. Microsoft, Cisco Systems, ADM, etc. are run as "democracies" where "everyone has a say." Of course not!

The truth is, those who stand at the head of today's corporations are every bit as much autocrats as Genghis Khan or Attila the Hun ever were, and so much so that the men and women who have come to occupy the lofty heights of today's corporate world look down on the rest of humanity (and most especially upon their workers) with about as much contempt as Louis XIV evinced when he gazed down on the inhabitants of Seventeenth Century Paris. Moreover, by their business decrees and executive fiats they affect the lives of their "subjects" (i.e., workers) in ways that are just as profound as those of the absolute monarchs of a thousand or five hundred years ago.

None of these businessmen and CEOs are given much to democratic modes of living; they are in fact despots in the most severe and brutal meaning of the word - megalomaniacs like Steve Case of AOL/Time Warner, Bill Gates of Microsoft, Sumner Redstone of Viacom, Michael Eisner of Disney, Rupert Murdoch of News Corporation, Lawrence Ellison of Oracle, John Chambers of Cisco Systems, C. Michael Armstrong of AT&T, Tom Feston of MTV, ad nauseum - egotistical, conceited, presumptuous little tyrants - all of them - and to say otherwise is to expose oneself as an ignoramus! Professor C. Wright Mills of Columbia University writes of such people:

"These men transcend ... the ordinary environments of ordinary people, and by their decisions they set up and break down the destinies of others ... They are not 'confined' by their 'responsibilities' as are 'ordinary' people. They are not bound by their communities. They need not merely 'meet the demands of the day and hour'; in some part, they create these demands, and cause others to meet them. Whether or not they profess their power, they wield it in a manner which far transcends that of the underlying population. What Jacob Burckhardt said of great men, could be said of them: 'they are all that ordinary people are not'."

So what do we have here? - a press that is totally controlled by these kinds of people, people who are absolutely and totally anti-democratic in nature, and who are - therefore - given to using the press (i.e., the media) as a propaganda mechanism. And it is the very anti-democratic nature of these people that predisposes the press towards the emergence of a new Hitler. Indeed, the American press today is less free of forces given to anti-democratic proclivities than was the press of Germany in 1933 - and that's quite a statement!

So much for the first element necessary for the creation of an Antichrist-figure in the United States. What about the other two elements: (1) a willing population, and (2) the existence of an actual person around which a "messiah myth" can be built? Let's take first the matter of whether or not there exists a "willing population" in the country that is predisposed to the emergence of an Antichrist - and we will find that there does indeed exist such a population, and - as we just indicated - it exists, surprisingly enough (at least insofar as many evangelicals would be concerned), in the world of religion.


The fact is, the same exact proclivities and biases that exist against democracy in the business world, and which - like the business world - hold the concepts of democracy in contempt, exist in the religious world as well. We speak here, of course, of the evangelical Christian community - and most particularly of that portion of evangelical Christendom that aims at "restoring" what it perceives to be the "ruins of our 'Christian nation'" (i.e., America) by seeking more closely to unite its version of Christianity with state power.

IT IS PRECISELY HERE, IN THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY, THAT WE FIND THE "WILLING POPULATION" THAT IS PREDISPOSED TO THE EMERGENCE OF A NEW HITLER-FIGURE. What's ironic about all this, is that this is the very community that should be predisposed AGAINST the emergence of the Antichrist. It gives you an idea of how APOSTATE evangelical Christianity has become.

The very real fact of the matter is, there exists today within the evangelical community a predisposition of mind towards EXTREMELY anti-democratic modes of thinking - modes which, like those in the business community, make the religious community such READY-MADE TERRAIN for the emergence of a new messiah - which cannot help but nourish autocratic proclivities and biases.

Indeed, the truth is, the pastoral system that now predominates in the evangelical world is as despotic as is the one that is found in today's business world, and so much so that those who stand at the head of most of today's evangelical churches are as tyrannical and autocratic as their corporate counterparts - maybe even more so; i.e., evangelical leaders like Charles Stanley, D. James Kennedy, Tim LaHaye, the late John Wimber, Juan Carlos Ortiz, C. Peter Wagner, Beverley LaHaye, Ern Baxter, Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Hagin, Oral Roberts, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Chuck Colson, Jack Hayford, David Yonggi Cho, Robert Stearns, Mike Bickle, Reuven Doron, Che Ahn, Frank Hammond, Cindy Jacobs, Bill Hamon, John Eckhardt, Bobbie Byerly, Dutch Sheets, Jim Goll, John Paul Jackson, James Ryle, Frank Damazio, Ed Silvoso, Carlos Annacondia, Claudio Freidzon, Roger Mitchell, Ted Haggart, Paul Cain, Chuck Pierce, Rick Joyner, Kingsley Fletcher, Jim Laffoon, Barbara Wentroble, ad infinitum.

The list is endless and runs the entire gamut of evangelical Christianity. These men (and some women) - ALL OF THEM - exercise as much autocratic power as any CEO in today's corporate world - and perhaps even more so because they make the claim that their power derives from the divine - a claim that only a very few in the business world would dare to make (though I suppose there are a few who would probably do so).


As we indicated previously, these evangelical leaders - like the CEOs they imagine themselves to be - are autocrats in the most severe and brutal meaning of that word - megalomaniacs in love with their own presumed "piety" and "holiness;" "little gods" - everyone of them - egotistical, conceited, and presumptuous; proud peacocks who strut and prance every Sunday before their parishioners without any shame and embarrassment. Like their business counterparts, these are not men much given to the institutions of democracy or any kind of belief in the equality of Christians within the community of God, let alone the community of man.

For example, the late R.J. Rushdoony and his estranged kinsman, Gary North, both consider democracy to be a "heresy." Rushdoony called democracy "the great love of the FAILURES and COWARDS of life." He insisted that true "... Christianity is completely and radically ANTI-DEMOCRATIC." David Chilton believes pretty much the same thing. And one is making a great mistake in believing that the thinking of Rushdoony, North, and Chilton is that much removed from the thinking of most of the other leaders in today's Christendom. Rushdoony appeared numerous times on Pat Robertson's 700 Club. North has also appeared on the same program, and both made repeated appearances at D. James Kennedy's massive church in Florida and other similarly disposed churches throughout the country.

There are, of course, some evangelical Christians who might deny that the thinking of people like Rushdoony, North, Chilton, etc. is representative of most in today's Christianity - to which I would simply say, "Where have you been for the past several years?" The truth is, anti-democratic sensibilities are a common fact of life in most of today's churches, and these sensibilities are easily discerned in the way that most of these churches are organized: As corporate hierarchies that promote a military-like discipline that is enforced by an extremely rigid chain-of-command where one is required to "submit" to those who are "above," and to "rule over" those who are "below."


Outwardly, the "system of government" in these churches (especially the mega-churches) looks like a giant pyramid which by its very nature and character emphasizes in a most unkind and incessant way "rank and position" - and so much so that one's very "spirituality" is measured by how high up one is in the church pyramid. No room here for any expression of "individuality" (a concept that is totally at variance with what passes today for "spirituality" in most of these churches); no chance either for any kind of "personal walk" with Christ outside the church's system of hierarchy. In the end, one's "spirituality" is measured simply by the yardstick of SUBMISSION - and by that, it is meant submission to CHURCH authority. THIS IS, OF COURSE, EXACTLY THE TYPE OF "READY-MADE TERRAIN" THAT NOURISHES THE KIND OF BLIND, UNTHINKING SUBMISSION TO AUTHORITY THAT IS NECESSARY TO ANY ANTICHRIST SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT.

SADLY, BY EMBRACING THIS SYSTEM OF AUTHORITY, MOST CHRISTIANS ARE UTTERLY UNAWARE OF HOW CLOSE THEY ARE TO EMBRACING THE ANTICHRIST. That Christians could accept the kind of thinking that promotes this type of blind submission to authority only underlines how brainwashed and propagandized evangelical Christians are today with regard to the question of authority!




The fact is, however, Jesus promoted no such hierarchical scheme of things. Jesus taught the EXACT opposite. He said,

"Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
"BUT IT SHALL NOT BE SO AMONG YOU: but whosoever will be great among you, LET HIM BE YOUR MINISTER (i.e., servant);
"And whosoever will be chief among you, LET HIM BE YOUR SERVANT (i.e., slave):
"Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto (i.e., served), but to minister (i.e., serve), and to give his life a ransom for many." (Matt. 20:25-28)

Indeed, instead of teaching that Christians should be dependent on an outward chain-of-command, Jesus said,

"... ye need not that any man teach you: but ... the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie [i.e., the same anointing (which is truth and no lie) teaches all of you the same things]. (I John 2:27)

And exactly what is this anointing? Jesus said that it is -

"... the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." (John 14:26)

And again, Jesus said,

"But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me ..." (John 15:26)


God's will is that He should rule over us directly IN OUR HEARTS; that their should be no intermediaries between us and Him - AND THAT IS PRECISELY WHY THE HOLY SPIRIT WAS GIVEN.

JESUS DWELLS IN OUR HEARTS in the Person of the Holy Spirit! - IN ALL OF OUR HEARTS, and this is what makes Christianity so different from all the other religions of the world! This is what makes Christianity so REVOLUTIONARY! So WONDERFUL! This is why Peter can speak of the "priesthood of ALL believers" (I Peter 2:9).

Sadly, however, the great truth of the "priesthood of ALL believers" which evangelicalism did so much to recover in the Nineteenth and early Twentieth centuries is today more "dead doctrine" than it is reality - a teaching "more honored in the breach than in the keeping."

Instead, most Christians in today's church have been taught to just sit quietly in their chairs (pews) week after week while the "paid professionals" teach and otherwise function. What a shame that people who today call themselves "evangelical" can put up with such a system, let alone encourage and teach it.

But the people love their "kings." Why? - because they want to shirk their responsibilities before God. In other words, instead of picking up these responsibilities for themselves, they prefer to hand them over to someone else who will do the work for them (whether that means taking responsibility for their children's spiritual upbringing, studying the Word for themselves, counseling one another, etc.) - even if it means accepting a tyranny over themselves as a result.

Isn't that the great lesson of 1 Samuel 8:4-22? Isn't that what the people wanted when they demanded of Samuel a king - EVEN AFTER SAMUEL HAD "REHEARSED" IN FRONT OF THEM THE KIND OF TYRANNY THAT WOULD RESULT?

The fact is, in the end (at least in this world), "kings" become tyrants - whether they exercise temporal power or religious power. It is as inevitable as the sun rising in the east; that is exactly why God told Samuel to "... show them the manner of ... king(s) that shall reign over them." He knew the heart of man; He knew what eventually would happen.


AND THIS IS WHAT IS HAPPENING TODAY! CHRISTIANS DON'T WANT TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEMSELVES; THEY WANT TO BE TOLD WHAT TO DO, SO THEY PREFER AUTOCRACY; THEY PREFER A "KING." AS A RESULT, THEY HAVE BECOME, AS IAN KERSHAW PUTS IT, "READY-MADE TERRAIN" for a new Hitler - a "fertile field," so to speak, that lends itself easily to the nourishment of a belief in autocracy; one that is predisposed towards a disdain for the concepts of democracy - all essential predispositions of mind necessary to the emergence of a RESITIUTOR ORBIS or world-ruler; in other words, the Antichrist.

Again I say, stop and think for a moment how ironic all this is! The very people through whom the concept of the Antichrist was made known to the world (and against whom they have warned the world for more than two millennia) turn out to be the very people who, in the end, will present him to the world.

Now that's DECEPTION! That's real and total DECEPTION! - so that the prophecy is fulfilled in them which says that in that day -

"... the very elect should be deceived" (Matt. 24:24).




So what does all this mean? - it means that unbeknownst (or at least unrecognized) by most observers in our society, we have two very important segments of our culture - i.e., the business community and the Christian community - that are predisposed AGAINST democracy - i.e., to a mindset that is inclined in favor of autocratic ways of governing, and are, as a result, "READY-MADE TERRAIN" for the appearance of the Antichrist.

How great a threat does all this pose to us? We can get an idea by measuring how large a portion of our population identifies itself with this segment of our society. The liberal Jewish organization B'nai Brith, no friend to conservative Christianity, and, as a result, not an organization that would be much given to over-estimating the strength of the conservative Christian community, believes that conservative Christians - i.e., that portion of the Christian community that embraces the idea of returning the nation to "Christ and the church" (and, ipso facto, to messianic concepts of leadership) - now encompass close to ONE-THIRD of the entire population of the United States. This figure includes those Catholics who have "gone over" to this kind of thinking. That would include 90 percent of church-going evangelical Protestants, and close to 60 percent of church-going Catholics. Now think about that! - that's ONE-THIRD of the entire U.S. population (again, according to B'nai Brith) - quite a feat for a movement that less than twenty-five years ago constituted nothing more than a small blip on the nation's political radar.

Some would say, that's only one-third of the population. Yes, that's true. BUT WHEN THIS ONE-THIRD OF THE POPULATION IS REINFORCED BY THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY [WITH ALL ITS MONEY AND INFLUENCE (AND WHICH - LIKE THE COUNTRY'S RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY - IS PREDISPOSITIONED TO A BELIEF IN AUTOCRATIC LEADERSHIP)], THEN YOU MAY VERY WELL HAVE A "WINNING" COMBINATION! And this is especially true when one understands that it isn't as if the one-third of the population that constitutes the "New Christian Right" is opposed by the remaining two-thirds of the population. That isn't the case at all. The Religious Right, in fact, is vigorously opposed by only the so-called "hard Left" (i.e., hard core feminists, the gay and lesbian community, the minority community, the entertainment community, the liberal Jewish community, those still given to socialist ways of thinking, the so-called intellectual community, etc.) - which, like the Christian community, constitutes about one-third of the population. This leaves the remaining one-third of the populace "in play" and "up for grabs" - AND IF THAT'S THE CASE, THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT IS IN A VERY GOOD POSITION TO "CARRY THE DAY," ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF THE EVENTS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001.


The truth is, since the events of September 11th, this movement - i.e., THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT - has been advancing with all the grim cadence of warfare (that's what all the flag-waving and superficial patriotism of today is all about), and as it expands, it is enveloping ever more of the population in its absolutist thinking; and the so-called "War on Terrorism" is only adding to the movement's growth.

This is pretty frightening when one considers the naked militancy that is being employed to move the Christian Right forward - the kind that denounces church / state separation as "religious cleansing," "a socialist myth," and "a lie of the left." Before the events of September 11th, this kind of talk would have been denounced by the press; that's no longer the case. Indeed, such former mouthpieces of liberalism as CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc. are now actually helping to propel such thinking forward.

And one should be clear here, this new Christian militancy is no "surface phenomenon." It's for real. Consider the belligerence Pat Robertson, leader of the Christian Coalition, is employing in describing the effort of the Christian Right to advance itself against the Left: Robertson writes that this -

"... is really the most significant battle of the age-old conflict between good and evil, between the forces of God and the forces against God"

The "most significant battle!" Think about that! That's quite a statement! This is not the kind of mindset that lends itself easily to compromise and moderation. Robertson goes on to assert,

"Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's the same thing."

Wow! What liberals have done to Christians in America is "... just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews!" Again, that's quite a statement - but these people really believe it! They don't think they are exaggerating. And if that's the case, think about what this kind of thinking could justify. The mind fairly boggles at the thought. After all, almost anything could be justified in stopping the Nazis - even extermination!


In this kind of environment, people on the Left are not merely political opponents, they are not merely wrong; they are "the ENEMY" and they are "SATANIC." According to this rhetoric, feminists "kill their children," "practice witchcraft," "destroy capitalism," and "become lesbians." Abortion is nothing less than the "Final Solution;" it is the "state-sponsored EXTERMINATION of an entire class of innocent citizens;" not only that, but public education is "a socialist, ANTI-GOD system of education;" and gays and lesbians comprise the "most pernicious evil of today."

The hysteria of this kind of language excites hatred and loathing of one's opponents, and opens up the eventual possibility of a "holy war" against them - and IT IS PRECISELY THIS KIND OF THINKING THAT HAS SPREAD IN ONE DEGREE OR ANOTHER TO THE HARD-CORE CHRISTIAN RIGHT - AGAIN, ALMOST ONE-THIRD OF THE U.S. POPULATION!

Moreover, with the "War on Terrorism" now at full throttle, one can be sure that this kind of thinking is today rapidly diffusing itself throughout the general population as evinced by polls that indicate a TRIPLING of church attendance since September 11th.




Given this reality, almost anyone could fulfill the Christian Right's "Messiah-Wish" now. After all, the pathology that is at work here has powerful transforming properties attached to it, and once it takes hold on a "host," who really knows what can happen? For instance, who would have ever dreamed that a tiny little man of no repute from the remote island of Corsica could have ever been transformed into a Napoleon Bonaparte? Or an obscure, failed art student from Vienna could have ever been "morphed" into an Adolf Hitler?

It is EXACTLY this pathology that has now fixated itself on George Bush, a man who before the events of September 11th had all the appearance of a buffoon, but who now - under the impress of these events (and this pathology) - is being transformed into a "war leader" on a par with Winston Churchill, which is kind of like creating a silk purse out of a sow's ear. It gives a person some idea of just how much the Christian community in the United States has been prepared (adapted) by its own apostate condition into READY-MADE TERRAIN for messianic leadership. And one should ask himself in connection with this development, What's this terrain now producing? Is there a new messiah-king emerging? God help us all if there is, for we may be about to descend into a nightmlare so vast that the Bible says of it,

"... except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened." (Matt. 24:22)

Under normal circumstances, the idea of George Walker Bush as a "courageous" "war leader" - especially a "courageous" "CHRISTIAN" war leader - would be preposterous; it would be enough to take one's breath away, especially in light of how he "whimped out" of Vietnam and hid from his duty during that conflict in an air national guard unit that his "daddy" pulled strings to get him into. Yet today countless numbers of Christians are slavishly buying into the myth of Bush as a "war leader" without even bothering to find out whether it is true or not, or whether or not they are being "sold a bill of goods" by the elites. THE FACT IS, THEY WANT TO BELIEVE IT - AND SO MUCH SO THAT THEY CALL ANYONE WHO OPPOSES THE NEW "MYTH MAKING" SURROUNDING THE PRESIDENT "UNPATRIOTIC."

And there can be no question that something exceptional is happening to Bush, especially insofar as his image is concerned. Everyone has noticed what's going on. For instance, Alan Brinkley, Professor of History at Columbia University in New York (and someone who was openly hostile to Bush prior to September 11th), says that something truly remarkable has happened - something that has "remade" him in a really unprecedented way. Also many of his political opponents have noticed the change too; for example, Dick Gephardt, Democratic leader in the House, and Tom Dashele, Democratic leader in the Senate. This is extraordinary for a man who just a short while ago was being touted as a "pretender to the throne" [having lost the "popular vote" (as opposed to the "electoral vote") in the presidential election of 2000 by over 500,000 votes] and who was widely perceived as having "stolen the election" by brazen "voter manipulation" in Florida; and not only that, but who was seen as someone who was generally thought of as "intellectually challenged" - an "accidental president," and an-all-around flop who was destined to be a one-term president of little note and small achievement; an easy "knock-off" for the Democrats in 2004.


Not any more! Ever since the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York came crashing down last September, the media - almost as if on cue - has made what amounts to be a 180 degree turn in their coverage of Bush, and so much so that if one didn't know better, one would be tempted to think that the press had been covering two different people. Moreover, the sudden way it was done leads one to believe that all this is more than just "happenstance;" that there is a good deal of surreptitious coordination involved here.

In this connection, one should remember that in dealing with the "mainline press," one is dealing with the "CORPORATELY-CONTROLLED" press; that there is an "intersection of interests" between General Electric, Westinghouse, Disney, Viacom, CNN / Time Warner, etc., and that this "intersection of interests" is located around the process of globalization. Thus, when the media suddenly closes ranks on any particular subject such as NAFTA, the WTO, "free trade," the FTAA, "Fast Track" authority, the Middle East, the so-called "War on Terrorism, the so-called "War on Drugs," the necessity of strengthening the military, the necessity of destroying the guerrillas (i.e., the FARC) in Columbia, etc., one can be reasonably certain that globalization is involved; that the vital interests of America's "New World Order System" are at stake; and, as a result, a very methodical ELITE-sponsored undertaking is afoot.

What all this means is that the ELITES (the Christian Right's partners insofar as the pathology we have been discussing is concerned) HAVE ENTERED THE FRAY and are very much behind the effort to raise Bush's standing insofar as the voters are concerned - and that they are doing so for their own very selfish reasons.

What everyone seems to forget in all the smoke and confusion that has followed the events of September 11th (and, of course, what the elites would like people to forget), is that prior to this date the elites had been having a very rough "go of it" insofar as their globalization efforts were concerned. The Left had managed to weave together a very powerful coalition of forces in opposition to the elite's GLOBALIST "NEW WORLD ORDER" DREAMS - as evidenced by how the Left had been able to mount in recent months very massive, well-coordinated, leftist (read "socialist"), anti-globalist demonstrations in Athens, Prague, Davos, Washington DC, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Genoa, Quebec, etc., to say nothing of the way the Left had managed to block the elite's effort to push "Fast Track" authority for the President through Congress which the elite's need to speed up globalization.


But the events of September 11th have very "CONVENIENTLY" (some people on the Left would say "too conveniently") allowed the corporate elites to use Bush (and the "War on Terrorism") as an INTEGRATING force around which they can construct a "counter-force" against what they perceive to be the very frightening efforts of the Left to "shut down" globalization. This is "A TOO CONVENIENT FACT" that the Left both here and abroad has been doing everything in its power to bring to the attention of people.

But because they (i.e., the Left) lack access to the corporate media, they have been unable to get average people to make the obvious connection here - THAT THERE HAS BEEN A CALLOUS EFFORT BY THE ELITES TO USE THE EVENTS OF SEPTEMBER 11TH, 2001 (AND THE NEW "ANTHRAX SCARE") FOR THEIR OWN SELFISH ENDS; that what's been happening has all the hallmarks of a consciously contrived attempt by cynical, very manipulative "behind-the-scene" "players" to "manufacture" consensus in the country by making Bush a "POINT OF REFERENCE" around which "the masses" can be rallied in a patriotic (even jingoistic) crusade against "EVIL."

It's a campaign which right now is being characterized as a crusade against "terrorism," but which is gradually being "morphed" (transformed) into a broader campaign against all those forces that oppose globalization. And this is EXACTLY what Bush was engaged in doing at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) conference in Shanghai on Saturday, October 19, 2001 - i.e., helping to "morph" the war against terrorism into a crusade against those who oppose globalization - when he called the attack against the World Trade Center in New York an attack against "world trade."

He said that he believed the World Trade Center was specifically chosen as a target because it was a symbol of "economic progress." He urged the leaders of APEC to "... show the world - enemies and friends alike - that economic progress (i.e., the integration of the nations of the world into the American "New World Order System") will continue despite efforts by terrorists to spread fear."

The effort here to turn globalization into a crusade against terrorism has been callously designed to "STUPEFY" the American people with a surfeit of patriotic flag waving, and then to benumb them in a toxic swirl of jingoism - all calculated to wean them away from those populist forces that oppose globalization and to move them towards a "One-World," "counter revolutionary," "anti-socialist" (which means support for unrestricted, unbridled corporate capitalism), mass movement that favors the globalist goals of the American elites.


And in this connection, it goes without saying that the willingness of the Christian community to accept messianic leadership is conditional on their perceiving this leadership as CHRISTIAN leadership, AND THAT'S DEPENDENT ON THE ABILITY OF BUSH TO PASS HIMSELF OFF AS A CHRISTIAN - i.e., to get evangelical Christians to believe that he is one of them.




This, of course, brings us to the matter of Bush's so-called Christianity. The public effort to pass Bush off as a Christian has revolved to a great extent around forging for Bush a believable "CHRISTIAN TESTIMONY." The fruit of this effort surfaced for the first time on a NATIONAL basis in the "CHRISTIAN TESTIMONY" the Bush campaign distributed in the 2000 presidential election. [And it should be noted in this connection that never before in the entire history of presidential elections has a presidential campaign made it its business to distribute as an actual part of the campaign the "Christian Testimony" of the candidate himself. This gives a person some idea of the importance Bush's campaign staff attached to his "Christian credentials."] The "Testimony" read in part:

"... the seeds of my decision (for Christ) were ... planted by the Reverend Billy Graham. (Several yeas ago) ... he visited my family for a summer weekend in Maine (i.e., in the late 1980s). I saw him preach at the small summer church, St. Ann's by the Sea. We all had lunch on the patio overlooking the ocean. One evening my dad asked Billy to answer questions from a big group of family gathered for the weekend.

"He sat by the fire and talked. And what he said sparked a change in my heart. I don't remember the exact words. It was more the power of his example. The Lord was so clearly reflected in his gentle and loving demeanor. The next day we walked and talked at Walker's Point, and I knew I was in the presence of a great man. He was like a magnet; I felt drawn to seek something different. He didn't lecture or admonish; he shared warmth and concern. Billy Graham didn't make you feel guilty; he made you feel loved. Over the course of that weekend, Reverend Graham planted a mustard seed in my soul, a seed that grew over the next year. He led me to the path, and I began walking. It was the beginning of a change in my life. I had always been a "religious" person, had regularly attended church, even taught Sunday School and served as an altar boy. But that weekend my faith took on a new meaning. It was the beginning of a new walk where I would commit my heart to Jesus Christ."

The problem with this "testimony" from a "conversion standpoint" is that there isn't the slightest hint in it of any kind of an actual "born-again" experience. True, there is a lot of talk about "warmth and concern," about "being made to feel that you're loved," and about a "commitment" to a kind of warm and fuzzy Jesus, a "teddy bear" kind of "Christ" that one would feel comfortable nuzzling up with - that's it!


But where is the Gospel here? Where is the acknowledgment of sin - i.e., that one is a sinner in need of a savior? - the admission that "... all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God ..." (Rom. 3:23)?

And more than just that, how is it possible to even get to that point - i.e., the acknowledgment that one is a sinner in need of a savior - if there is at first no admission of guilt? - which Bush obviously eschews in his testimony when he says, "Billy Graham didn't make you feel guilty; he made you feel loved." The fact is, the Bible says that without the acknowledgment of sin (i.e., guilt), we cannot be saved; that our salvation is predicated on that accession:

"IF we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 John 1:9)

That's a statement with an "IF" attached to it! There is a condition here! We MUST "CONFESS" (i.e., acknowledge) our sins.

But there is nowhere in the so-called "public record" or in any of the personal ruminations of his friends and colleagues of any "acknowledgment of sin," or that he (Bush) was a sinner in need of a savior? Sheehy says:

"His conversion certainly didn't come about as a result of contemplating past sins. He proudly rejects introspection and has no interest in looking back over the 'youthful indiscretions' that characterized his first 44 years. In interviews Bush repeatedly says: 'I'm not one of those people who say, Gosh, if I'd have done it differently, I'd have ...' He pauses for a few seconds to contemplate his life, then confidently concludes: 'I can't think of anything I'd do differently'."

"I'm not one of those people who say, 'Gosh, if I'd have done it differently ... I can't think of anything I'd do differently" ? My heavens! - that's not something you would imagine a new Christian would say; at least not someone who felt genuine remorse for his sins - and in Bush's case, there certainly were a lot of them, from arranging an abortion for a girl friend in Alaska [as alleged by Larry Flynt on CNN's Crossfire (Flynt said he had statements to that effect from Bush's former girlfriend, the doctor who performed the abortion, and the many friends of Bush in Alaska at the time)], to alleged cocaine use, to alleged marijuana use, to alleged orgies of every sort, etc.] We must remember what Christ is to us. He is called THE SAVIOR! The savior from what? - our sins! It's for this reason that He came; that's what the angel of God told Joseph, the husband of Mary - the mother of Jesus - when he (i.e., the angel) said:

"And she (i.e., Mary) shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for HE SHALL SAVE HIS PEOPLE FROM THEIR SINS." (Matt. 1:21)

In other words, He is called the "SAVIOR" because He saves us from our sins. And it is PRECISELY this fact that John the Baptist acknowledged when, in addressing Christ, he said:

"... Behold the Lamb of God, WHICH TAKETH AWAY THE SIN OF THE WORLD." (John 1:29)

If we fail to see this, if we fail to acknowledge this fact - i.e., that we are sinners - then the Gospel is of no effect insofar as we are concerned. This is what the Bible says:

"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and THE TRUTH IS NOT IN US.
"If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and HIS WORD IS NOT IN US." (1 John 1:8, 10)


The Bible says that those who fail to acknowledge their guilt - i.e., that they are sinners - THE TRUTH IS NOT IN THEM; in other words, they are liars in the most profound sense of that word. And, as a result, they are of their -

"... father the devil ... FOR HE IS A LIAR, and the father of it." (John 8:44)

What's that say, then, about those who embrace this kind of "non-judgmental" Gospel? It says that such people are "not of Christ" - that they are LYING when they say that they belong to Christ; that they are of their father the devil! Pretty harsh! But this is EXACTLY the kind of Gospel that is in vogue in today's Christianity.

And one needs to be clear here: Without question, the "Christ" that Bush is acknowledging in his so-called "testimony" is the "non-judgmental," "non-doctrinal" kind of "Christ." It's a Gospel where there is "no conflict" and which suggests that "all roads eventually lead to God;" the kind of "Christ" that Catholic leaders like Cardinal Mahony of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and Mormon leaders like Chip Rawlings, the Mormon stake president in Southern California, can mutually accept. But this is the kind of "false Christ" the Bible warns about in Matthew 24:

"For there shall arise FALSE CHRISTS, and FALSE PROPHETS, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect." (Matt. 24:24)


False Christs! False prophets! And false Christians! - is this what Bush is? - a false Christian? It certainly seems so. Gail Sheehy also has a lot of questions concerning the veracity of Bush's Christianity - and her conclusions only reinforce what we have already said.

In her incisive article on George Bush that appeared in Vanity Fair in October, 2000, she traces Bush's so-called "conversion" back to the mid-1980s when Bush finally gave up the bottle and his general all-around carousing. But Sheehy reports that Robert McCleskey says that when Bush abandoned the bottle, it had more to do with an ultimatum his wife, Laura, gave him than it had to do with any personal experience with Christ.

McCleskey, a friend of Laura's since childhood, says, "Laura explained it to him in a way he would understand it, and he quit drinking." Did that mean his wife threatened to leave him if he didn't stop drinking? he was asked. "That's right." In other words, he would lose his wife and his twin daughters, Jenna and Barbara, born in November 1981 - the only structure he had, reports McCleskey. He continues solemnly, "I mean that Laura and those two little girls had changed his life."

McCleskey isn't the only one that claims that it was Laura that made Bush give up the bottle. It was widely reported in the press throughout Texas at the time that Laura had told her husband, "It's me or the bottle," or "It's me or Jack Daniels."

However. Don Evans, perhaps Bush's closest friend and now the Secretary of Commerce, indignantly rejects all this. And why is that? - because, if this is true, it does little to establish Bush's bona fides as a Christian - AND THAT IS, AFTER ALL, WHAT IS IMPORTANT HERE - I.E., ESTABLISHING BUSH'S LEGITIMACY AS A CHRISTIAN. One needs to remind himself of what's happening here: If the elites are going to be successful in building a Christian "mass movement" to counter the Left's efforts to sidetrack globalization, the man they "choose" to lead this movement must, of course, be a Christian, or he must, at least, be perceived to be a Christian.

The truth is, nonetheless, that there are many men and women - not all of them Christians - who have given up the bottle in order to maintain a marriage. This, of course, doesn't take away from what Bush did - it is an admirable thing when anyone gives up a destructive habit like that. But it doesn't mean that one has to accept Christianity to do so. Nonetheless, Don Evans is insistent that Bush quit the bottle because he embraced Christianity.


He claims Bush became a Christian when he and a few friends invited Bush to attend some evangelical Christian meetings (meetings that were arranged around a course of study by James Dobson) while Bush was still drilling "dry holes" with Arbusto Oil back in Midland, Texas. Don Jones, another close friend from Midland days, corroborates Don Evans' story - at least up to a point. Jones says that Bush did indeed accompany him and a number of other friends in Midland (including Evans) to a series of Christian meetings in the mid-1980s - but Jones says that Bush never really took the matter seriously.

The truth is, according to a rather sheepish Jones, Bush never "behaved himself." He claims that George would be constantly cracking jokes like, "What kind of pants did the Levites wear?" When the pastor asked, "What is a prophet?" Bush sang out in front of forty other couples, "That's when revenues exceed expenditures. No one's seen that out here in years." Another time the pastor asked the question, "What happened to the Jew on his way to Jericho?" and Bush quipped, "He got his butt whipped." And when his attention span was exceeded, he would set his watch to go off in the middle of the pastor's lesson. The other men would guffaw, and the following week they would all set their watches to go off at the same time in the middle of the lesson and the class would turn into a cacophony of alarm bells.

There are a number of other things that seemed to trouble Jones insofar as Bush's claim to be a Christian was concerned. Jones, who can point to the exact date when he became a born-again Christian, never heard Bush describe an actual "conversion experience." Jones says that "He (i.e., Bush) never said he was spiritually empty" (i.e., that he "needed" Christ) - something that mystified Jones, and troubled him deeply. Mike Conaway, a six-foot-three former football player who was another one of Bush's close friends back in Midland when Bush is supposed to have become a Christian says, "I didn't see any change in his behavior. I thought that's what is supposed to happen when a person becomes a Christian. But I didn't see that in Bush."




The fact is, no matter how one cuts it, Bush's experience with Christianity during the mid to late-1980s was at best a shallow and superficial one - not the kind of experience that would go very far in establishing himself as someone who took his Christianity very seriously. But all that changed when he came in contact with Dr. Tony Evans (not to be confused with Don Evans), the black pastor of one of Dallas's largest mega-churches, the crystal-chandeliered Oak Cliff Bible Fellowship, and the Christian organization Evans helped to found, the PROMISE KEEPERS.

Sheehy says that Tony Evans was one of the early "movers and shakers" in the PROMISE KEEPERS phenomenon that seemed to appear out of nowhere in the early to mid-1990s. What seemed to attract Bush to the PROMISE KEEPERS was its implicit political message, a message that he came increasingly to believe that - had his father embraced it - he would not have lost the White House to Bill Clinton.

The loss by "Bush the Elder" to the Clintons in the 1992 presidential election had infuriated "Bush the Younger," and it had ignited in him a new, burning interest in politics. All of this coincided nicely with Bush's new friendship with Tony Evans. Essentially, what Bush learned from Tony Evans was a completely new approach to politics - a RELIGIOUS approach rather than an economic one, an approach that Bush thought could trump the economic message that Clinton had used to defeat his father with. Indeed, Dr. Martin Hawkins, Tony Evans's assistant pastor, says that what Bush did was to imbibe a "WHOLE NEW PHILOSOPHY" about "how the world should be seen from a divine viewpoint" - a view that Sheehy alleges was essentially LIFTED STRAIGHT OUT OF THE PAGES OF ONE OF TONY EVANS' PROMISE KEEPERS HANDBOOKS.

While the PROMISE KEEPERS themselves embrace no political doctrine as such, Bush and many of his cohorts came to believe that they did embrace a religious rhetoric that - if properly stroked and rearranged - could be transformed into a powerful political message that would resonate forcefully with a people who were growing weary with what many considered to be the "out-or-control" liberalism of the last few decades.


Most of the leaders of the PROMISE KEEPERS movement embrace a doctrine of "end times" (eschatology), known as "dominionism." DOMINIONISM PICTURES THE SEIZURE OF EARTHLY (TEMPORAL) POWER BY THE "PEOPLE OF GOD" AS THE ONLY MEANS THROUGH WHICH THE WORLD CAN BE RESCUED; ONLY AFTER THE WORLD HAS BEEN THUS "RESCUED" CAN CHRIST RETURN TO "RULE AND REIGN." Some dominionists see the seizure of the earth as the result of "signs, wonders, and miracles;" others picture it as the result of military and political conquest; most see it as a combination of both. It is this eschatology that Bush has imbibed; an eschatology through which he has gradually (and easily) come to see himself as an agent of God who has been called by Him to "restore the earth to God's control" - a "chosen vessel," so to speak, to bring in the "Restoration Of All Things." AND MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT - IT IS EXACTLY THIS ESCHATOLOGY THAT MOTIVATES BUSH TODAY. People are making a big mistake in underestimating this fact.

Al Dager, a recognized expert on the dominionist mindset, writes,

"Some two decades before Pentecostalism found its way into the (mainstream) denominations (i.e., the Episcopalians, the Catholic Church, etc.) as the 'Charismatic Renewal', it experienced a new surge of experience-oriented theology within its own ranks. It was from this neo-Pentecostal experience - what came to be called the 'Latter Rain Movement' - that Charismatic Dominionism sprang. The more prominent leaders of that movement blended Pentecostal fervor with teachings that the church was on the brink of a worldwide revival. That revival would result in a victorious church without spot or wrinkle ... (which) would inherit the earth and rule over the nations with a rod of iron."

Dominionism can run the gamut from the harsh, rather mean-spirited and very militant kind propagated by a R.J. Rushdoony or a Gary North, to the much more mild and palatable kind that dominionist aficionados and votaries like C. Peter Wagner, the late John Wimber, John White, Dr. Bill Hamon, Harold Caballeros, Sue Curran, Rick Joyner, John Paul Jackson, Barbara Wentroble, Chuck Pierce, etc. posit. It is this much more mild, "feel-good" form of dominionism that the PROMISE KEEPERS embrace and promote.

Barbara Wentroble, in her book People of Destiny, explains the new cuddly and friendly form of dominionism that Bush ran into with the PROMISE KEEPERS. Essentially, what these "new dominionists" believe is that the human race was created to be God's "representative in the earth." They were to guard and care for all of God's creation under His direction - and although many generations have failed in this responsibility, God has never changed His mind. That's what the church is all about. The church is the means through which God is going to re-establish His authority on the earth. God put His power and Spirit into the church to change the world and bring it back under authority. [Wentroble is somewhat of an anomaly; like Sue Curran, Wentroble is one of the most popular "new dominionist" speakers in a very male-dominated world. She is considered to be an "apostle-prophet" by many. Her "sphere of operation" is bringing churches (i.e., "Latter Rain," "new dominionist-type" churches) to small communities throughout the country.]

Sadly, according to the PROMISE KEEPERS, the church did not continue in the power and authority of the early church, and because of a spiritual principle at work in the world today - a principle that teaches us that what ever happens in the church affects the world - the world has been plunged back into darkness. In other words, when light goes out of the church, light goes out of the world.


But contrawise, when light comes back into the church, light also comes back into the world - and that is what's happening today in what C. Peter Wagner calls the "Restoration of all Things." According to Wagner, the Lord is today bringing the church into restoration. Wagner calls the restoration now taking place, "The New Apostolic Reformation" - a reformation that will bring in "The New Order." [A phrase (i.e., the "New Order") that, interestingly enough, both the elite community and the Christian Right started using about the same time - in the early 1990s; the elites began using the phrase in reference to the globalization process they had unleashed on the world; and the Christian Right began using it in reference to the "new dominionism" that the late John Wimber and C. Peter Wagner were spreading throughout the church.]

Wagner says that the church is now in a "season of transition." Old things in the church are passing away, and new things are taking their place. It is a season of change. During this season, the church will experience change in several areas. They will include evangelism, body ministry, church life, and GOVERNMENT.

The "New Order Church" (again, Wagner and Wentroble's phrase) will be God's agent for the coming transformation of the world. It will reveal the wisdom and power of God to the forces of darkness and wickedness. Many features of wisdom and power will be evident in the people of the "New Order." They will have hearts to see lives and CITIES transformed. According to the "new dominionists," the Lord has given several keys to unlocking territories and peoples that have been locked in darkness by the enemy. One of these keys is prayer and worship. A characteristic of the "New Order" is that worship and prayer (intercession) are mingled together. Wentroble writes,

'"New Order' churches flow back and forth from intercession and prayer. After praying the will of the Lord, they flow back into worship and praise to the Lord. Heaven and earth are joined together in one unbroken symphony."

Wentroble continues:



So what do we have occurring here? - a dynamic that the church initiates that aims at "restoring control of the earth to the Lord" by which the church in a very real and profound sense sets out to CONJURE Christ to do its will. But what they may be CONJURING is NOT Christ, but Antichrist. (Matt. 24:24)

You're surprised by our use of the word, "CONJURE?" Well, that's what we mean! To CONJURE means to use spiritual forces to accomplish YOUR will. That's what witches do. It is the sin of witchcraft - and it doesn't matter that the dynamic that is being used surrounds itself in beauty, rhapsodic music, and ecstatic worship, it still is witchcraft. Beauty is not always an indicator of God's presence. More than many of us realize, beauty leads to hell. Beauty is more often than not a harlot, and many a poor man has been made her prisoner:

"... at the window of my house I looked through my casement, And beheld among the simple ones, I discerned among the youths, a young man void of understanding, Passing through the street ... and he went ... to (a certain) house, In the twilight, in the evening, in the black and dark night: And, behold, there met him a (beautiful) woman with the attire of an harlot, and subtle of heart. So she caught him, and kissed him ... and said unto him ... I have decked my bed with coverings of tapestry, with carved works, with fine linen of Egypt. I have perfumed my bed with myrrh, aloes, and cinnamon. Come, let us take our fill of love until the morning: let us solace ourselves with love.

"With her much fair speech (and beauty) she caused him to yield, with the flattering of her lips she forced him.

"He goeth after her straightway, as an ox goeth to the slaughter, or as a fool to the correction of the stocks; Till a dart strike through his liver; as a bird hasteth to the snare, and knoweth not that it is for his life.

"Hearken unto me now therefore, O ye children, and attend to the words of my mouth. Let not thine heart decline to her ways, go not astray in her paths.

"For she hath cast down many wounded: yea, many strong men have been slain by her. Her house is the way to hell, going down to the chambers of death.

Again I say, don't be fooled by beauty! - "As I said, it is no indicator of God's presence. Indeed, the Bible says of our dear Lord that -

"... he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, THERE IS NO BEAUTY THAT WE SHOULD DESIRE HIM." (Is. 53:2)

Moreover, just because people use the name of "Christ" or "Jesus" in their CONJURING does not mean anything. The adherents of Voodoo and Santiera use the name of "Jesus" and "Christ" in their ceremonies and rituals, but it is most certainly NOT the Christ or the Jesus of the Bible. Remember, there are many "false Christs" and "false prophets" gone out into the world. (Matt 24:24)




Now it is extremely important at this point that we turn aside for a moment from the main theme of this article to examine the implications of some of these statements, and consider the dark and sinister source out from which this "New Order" thinking is coming. It will give some idea as to how conducive it is to the emergence of an Antichrist-figure, and we have reference specifically to the kind of thinking that has taken hold on groups like the PROMISE KEEPERS - and which now affect Bush and many in the Christian cabal (so-called) that now surround him (i.e., John Ashcroft, Don Evans, Karen Hughes, Karl Rove, etc.). And the source is very dark and sinister indeed!

According to the statements by Wentroble above (statements that all "new dominionists" would easily subscribe to), the church - not God - is in control of the eschatological process now at work in the world; God can only act when the church INVITES Him to act. What that does is strip God of His sovereignty. It makes the Creator subject to the whims of the creature. It makes man equal to God.

This, of course, is the great ORIGINAL sin: The desire to be like God; the sin that - in the obscurity of time long past - took hold of the archangel Lucifer, "Son of the Morning" (Isa. 14:12) and caused him to arrogantly assert -

"... I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
"I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I WILL BE LIKE THE MOST HIGH. (Isa. 14:13-14

But instead of becoming like God, instead of becoming co-equal with the Creator, Lucifer was sent crashing -

"... down to hell, to the sides of the pit." (Isa. 14:15)

But it isn't just Lucifer that was bewitched by this temptation - i.e., the desire "to be like God." This is also the same sin that beguiled Eve in the garden. Isn't that what Genesis 3:1-5 says? Of course it is:

"Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
"And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
"But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
"And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
"For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, AND YE SHALL BE AS GODS ..." (Gen. 3:1-5)


Those who believe they can turn God into a servant, or that they can come to the point where they can "invite" or "allow" God to do anything (in the context that Wentroble is using these words) - as if He needs their "permission" and "allowance" to do anything insofar as the "end of the age" is concerned - are being presumptuous in a most monumental way. As we indicated in the Antipas Papers,

"God's plans do not exist for our convenience - they will come to pass whether we approve of them or not. In the long run, it only matters to us - AND TIME FOR RECOGNIZING THIS FACT IS RUNNING OUT!"

Except insofar as the one single act of "inviting Christ into our hearts" when we are born again (which He grants on the basis of His grace alone), we cannot (indeed, we dare not) "allow," "permit" or "invite" God to do anything. HE ALLOWS, PERMITS AND INVITES US. He is SOVEREIGN in the most ABSOLUTE and COMPLETE way. Nothing can intrude on His sovereignty - and, as we just suggested, that extends even insofar as our "ability" or our "free will" (so-called, and - again - which we possess by grace alone) to invite Christ into our hearts. Indeed, concerning this very matter, the Bible says:

"Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
"Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?" (Rom. 9:20-21)

Dear Christian, listen to me very carefully: we are the clay; He is the Potter. The clay is in no position to "allow," "permit," or "invite" the Potter to do anything. And if we believe otherwise, we merely prove our own conceit and arrogance. Now what we are talking about here is serious stuff. There is nothing whimsical about it at all. This has nothing to do with "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin." There are very practical and "down-to-earth" outcomes that are involved here. And what do we mean by that? We mean there is an exceedingly dangerous thought behind this kind of thinking which springs from the darkest of sources and implies that man - when he invites Christ into his heart - becomes co-equal with God; that man becomes INTRINSICALLY one with God; that he becomes as much a son of God as Christ is; that he becomes as much God as Christ is. This is LUCIFERIC! And, naturally enough, because it is Luciferic, it leads people easily and quite naturally to the Antichrist, whether they are Christian or not.

Brothers and sisters, we are sons and daughters of God by ADOPTION, and that is all. That does not make us co-equal with Christ. Yes, it's true that the Bible says:

"For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." (Rom. 8:14)

And again it says:

"The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God ..." (Rom. 8:16)

But how is it that we become children of God? The Bible very clearly tells us: by ADOPTION. Isn't this what verse fifteen says - the one that comes EXACTLY between the two above referenced verses:

"For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of ADOPTION, whereby we cry, Abba, Father." (Rom. 8:15)

And this is confirmed by Galatians 4:5 that says that we have been redeemed so -

"... that we might receive the ADOPTION of sons." (Gal. 4:5)

And by Ephesians 1:5:

"Having predestinated us unto the ADOPTION of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will ..." (Eph. 1:5)

We are sons and daughters of God by ADOPTION, not by nature. We do not share in the Godhood of Christ. We do not have CREATIVE power, as does the Godhead. To think otherwise is SATANIC in the most PROFOUND sense of that word.


Yes, as believers (as the church) we are called to be one with Christ - but, again, we are not called into intrinsic oneness with Him, but into the oneness that intimate fellowship confers upon us; the same kind of close, confidential and dear fellowship (oneness) that a husband and wife have with one another. A husband and wife are one, but they do not become intrinsically one, they do not meld into each other; they are one in fellowship - and it is this kind of oneness that we have with God. This is what Ephesians 5:31-32 says:

"For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
"This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church." (Eph. 5:31-32)

The Bible says that they become "one flesh!" But they do not become "one flesh" intrinsically; they do not become a new being (really a monster) that is now half man and half woman. They become one in fellowship. That's what happens when we become one with Christ.

Again, I say, when we accept Christ into our lives, we do not thereby become a "little Jesus" or a "little god." God does not confer upon us GODHOOD, and in saying this I am, of course, more than aware that that's precisely what apostates and "renegades from the faith" like Kenneth Hagin and Kenneth Copleand believe. For example, Kenneth Hagin says:

"That's who we are; we're Christ."

But that's a lie, and those who believe it have fallen into the same EXACT sin that bewitched both Lucifer and Eve! And in believing this lie, they prove who they are: That they are of their father the devil -

"... FOR HE IS A LIAR, and the FATHER OF IT." (John 8:44)


What then does that say about the "new dominionists?" What's that say about Bush who has embraced the dominionist mindset? The "new dominionists, naturally, are loathe to admit that the logic of their thinking propels them into LUCIFERIC spheres of thinking; but in denying it, they are simply denying the obvious and hoping that most people will accept their denials at face value and let it go at that. Most Christians, of course, do. But the logic is crushing and it breaks out everywhere in their theology (such as it is).

Take the matter of how the "new dominionists" understand "prayer and intercession," and especially how "prayer and intercession" impact their view of dominionism. Wentroble "spills the beans" in this way:

"One of the keys available to the apostolic church (i.e., the "New Order Christian" or the "New Order Church") is prayer and intercession. Apostolic people intercede. The prayers, however, are not only for personal needs. They have a burden for the lost. They cry out for the Lord to be glorified in their cities ...

"During the '70s and '80s, the Church received much revelation about God's name as Jehovah Jireh. Teachers (like Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland, Charles Capps, Oral Roberts, etc. - editor) expounded on Scriptures revealing God's will to bless His people. He is the God who 'shall supply all our needs according to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus' (Phil. 4:19). That truth will never change. God is a covenant-keeping God. When we walk in covenant with Him, He provides for us."


Wow! Think about that! - the problem of poverty and all the social ills that result from poverty does not stem from the stinginess and deceitfulness of the rich, but in the lack of prayer on the part of the poor; when the poor walk in "covenant" with God, their financial problems will be solved. Now that's music to a rich man's ears.

And if the poor pray night and day, and still nothing happens, then there must be something wrong in their hearts; maybe some "hidden sin" that they need to root out first before God will hear their prayer - perchance the sin of envy (maybe towards the rich)? of jealously? of covetousness?

Meanwhile, as the poor are sent scurrying out to find the "hidden sin" in their lives, the rich can rest confident in their wealth, secure in the thought that the poor are now too busy finding sin in their own lives and in the lives of their neighbors to really think that much about how the rich actually got rich - mostly by deceit and treachery! Come on now! - isn't that how the Rockefellers got rich? Isn't that how the Mellons got rich? And the Morgans? And the DuPonts? Read your history books - after all, it isn't much of a secret.

Oh well, the poor are too busy praying and rooting sin out of their lives and the lives of their neighbors to think too much about that now. Again, all we can say is, Wow! - that's the kind of program the George Bush's of this world can get behind, to say nothing of the super-rich like Sumner Redstone, Lawrence Ellison, John Chambers, C. Michael Armstrong, Tom Feston, etc.


All this certainly let's the rich off the hook! No wonder the rich love Christianity. No wonder the wealthy have always lined up behind the church, from the old European elites like the Hapsburgs in Austria, the Hoehenzollerns in Germany, and the Romonovs in Russia to the new elites in this country like the Rockefellers, the Scaifs, the Mellons, the DuPonts, etc. And no wonder they are lining up today to support the cultural agenda of the conservative Christian community. But this is a depraved and immoral PERVERSION of the Scripture - and it is precisely for this reason that the Bible says,

"... the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles ..." (Rom. 2:24)

Nonetheless, the perversion continues, and so much so that the rich and their lackeys among the Congressional Republicans and in the Bush Administration have come to believe that a dollar spent on Christians saves twenty dollars spent on the poor - Republicans like Tom Delay, Dick Armey, Dan Burton, Helen Chenoweth, J.C. Watts, John Peterson, Ken Calvert, Bob Livingston, Karl Rove, John Ashcroft, Don Evans, Jim Nicholson, Bob Barr, Asa Hutchinson, ad nauseum.


Now it should be noted in connection with all this - i.e., with the way the "new dominionists" think that the "Good Life" is their due in the "here and now" because they are "sons and daughters of the Most High" - that the word "intercede" that is used here by Wentroble and others like her in connection with prayer means "DEMAND." According to Wentroble, then, we have the right to "DEMAND" riches from God because we are His children, and the very riches we receive from Him prove that we are His children. After all, God is Jehovah Jireh, the God of all abundance - and if that is so, wouldn't it be His desire to share that wealth with His children?

Isn't that what Philippians 4:19 says - that He "...shall supply all our needs according to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus;" that if we are walking in obedience to Christ, we shall have a life of abundance? [Hagin and Copeland go further. They say that because we are "sons and daughters of God" - and by that, they mean that we are INTRINSICALLY "sons and daughters of God;" that we are co-equal with Christ - we have CREATIVE power; that, as a result, we can actually "call riches into existence;" that we can be rich because we can - by our word (by our speaking) - create wealth like Harry Potter. Again, this is LUCIFERIC, and God help those who get involved in it.]

The Scriptural problem with such an interpretation, however, is that just seven verses before verse 19 (i.e., Philippians 4:19 referenced above), Paul says:

"I know both HOW TO BE ABASED, and I know how to abound: every where and in all things I am instructed both to be full AND TO BE HUNGRY, both to abound AND TO SUFFER NEED." (Phil. 4:12)

In other words, "being abased," "being hungry," and "suffering need" were common experiences for Paul - and not only that, but Christ had taught him (i.e., instructed him) how to endure these conditions. Indeed, Paul says:

"I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me." (Phil. 4:13)

Finally, if riches were the sign of one's sonship with God, than what does that say about Christ? - after all, Christ said of Himself:

"... Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head." (Matt. 8:20)

According to Wentroble's logic (and the logic that Hagin, Copeland, Hinn, etc. posit), Christ must have failed in His sonship. Come on now! - isn't that the logical extension of what she is saying here? Of course it is.




Now it is not without reason that we have spent so much time on the rather bizarre belief system of the "new dominionists" and the PROMISE KEEPERS," and that's because this form of Christianity - i.e., the form of Christianity that George Bush has now embraced - has, as we shall see, BUILT INTO IT AN IMPERATIVE TOWARDS CONQUEST. And it is precisely in those terms that Bush is justifying his war against "EVIL." That word (i.e., "evil") was not chosen haphazardly; it is being used in a very purposeful fashion. "EVIL" is a religious term, and does not really fit in a secular context, or in the lexicon of the Left.


As we indicated earlier, one of the underlying themes of the kind of Christianity that undergirds the PROMISE KEEPERS is that prayer and intercession (what we have labeled "CONJURING") - coupled with faith, and a life of holiness [more about this particular aspect (i.e., what this kind of Christianity means by the term "holiness") in upcoming articles] - will produce abundance and the "Good Life" in the "here and now." And when this logic is extended to the next level - in other words, when it is taken from the personal level and lifted up to the corporate level - it should follow that these same techniques - i.e., the same ones that have been used to HARNESS the power of God in one's personal life - can then be used to "take back territory for the Lord," in other words, for conquest.

And make no mistake about it, control of the nation (and through the nation, the world) is what Wentroble and her cohorts are really after. [It has, after all, not escaped the attention of the "new dominionists" that the United States is the most powerful nation on earth.] For example, Kenneth Copeland, one of the leading figures in the evangelical world and someone who is very favorably disposed towards the PROMISE KEEPERS, writes,

"This country belongs to God ... He's the One who brought the United States of America into existence. He had a special purpose for it ... He raised it up, and it's not going to be taken away from Him."

Bill Hamon, pastor of one of the largest evangelical churches in the country, and another pastor who is sympathetic to the goals of the PROMISE KEEPERS, writes,

"A new government must be established, a new way of life for ... millions of people."

Gary Potter, president of Catholics for Christian Political Action, says,

"When the Christian majority takes over this country, there will be no satanic churches, no more free distribution of pornography, no more abortion on demand, and no more talk of rights for homosexuals. After the Christian majority takes control, pluralism (i.e., multiculturalism) will be seen as immoral and evil and the state will not permit anybody the right to practice evil.

Well known evangelical leader Sam Fife says,

"... Jesus is setting up His kingdom here on earth ... . We are the rulers of this planet - it's time we take over."

George Hawtin writes,

"But the saints of the most High shall take (seize) the kingdom (meaning the earth), and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever."

And, finally, writing in the Journal of Christian Reconstruction, Presbyterian pastor Kenneth J. Gentry, Jr. declares:

"The whole creation awaits the godly dominion of the New Creation Saints of God."

And be clear here, like others, Gentry is not talking about the "sweet bye and bye," but the political "here and now."

Wentroble elaborates on what the "new dominionists" mean when they talk about "taking back territory" for the Lord:

"When we walk in covenant with Him, He provides for us. However, we are not to stop with having our own needs met. The heart of God is one who loves and gives to others. God's heart is for the whole earth to walk in covenant with Him. ALL NATIONS WILL ACKNOWLEDGE HIS LORDSHIP.

"Apostolic (again, "New Order") churches have a passion to see their families and neighbors worship the Lord. They are willing to pray and intercede (i.e., "DEMAND") for the lost ...

"(As we intercede) ... God is ABLE to unlock entire regions, as homes throughout an area become houses of prayer ... [Again, please notice: God's working is dependent on His people DEMANDING that He live up to His covenants. Now, one needs to be clear here, it is one thing for children to humbly petition their father for a gift; but it is quite another thing for a father's children to DEMAND something from their father - and make no mistake about it here - that's what Wentroble and her cohorts believe.]

"... prayer is a key to seeing an entire region come into transformation ... An apostolic church is a praying church. The apostolic churches pray corporately. Prayer is in their homes. People of the New Order are people who live a lifestyle of prayer - prayer powerful enough to transform regions (and nations)."


Wentroble gives an example of what she is talking about here insofar as intercession is concerned; in reference to "taking the city of Waco, Texas back from Satan," she writes:

"Recently I was part of a team of ministers speaking at a conference in Waco, Texas. The conference theme was 'Seize the City'. Intercessors gathered for several days to hear how they could bring their city under the lordship of Jesus. On one of the prayerwalks to historically strategic sites, we crossed a bridge over a river. About halfway across the bridge, an intercessor faced the city and cried out loudly, 'Waco, hear the word of the Lord'! She then made prophetic proclamations about the will of the Lord for that city. The other intercessors verbally agreed by shouting, 'Yes! Amen! Do it, Lord'. A sense that the proclamations were not merely the words of a human being came upon the team. God had spoken prophetically through one of His representatives."

So, in the minds of people like Wentroble (and the Promise Keepers), prayer is conceived of as a DEMAND on the Lord. Make no mistake about it. There is no spirit of humble supplication here. These are DEMANDS on the Lord. That's precisely what they mean when they say, "Do it!" They mean "Do it" in just about the same manner a spoiled child would say "do it" to his mother or father - or worse, the way a diner at a restaurant would say "Do it" to his waiter.

But this has nothing to do with ordering food at a restaurant; this has to do with CONQUEST - the conquest of whole cities, and whole nations, and the whole world - and not in the "sweet bye and bye," but in the "here and now." These people actually believe that they have been destined by God to conquer the world - and the sooner the better, and they are absolutely not afraid of transferring their prayers into political activity! That's precisely what Wentroble means that "New Order" Christians should "care" for their cities and take "dominion" over them.


Now stop here and think once again about what all this means! That's a message with worldwide, earth-shattering implications. And it is here, in the dominionist eschatology that the PROMISE KEEPERS promulgate, that Bush apparently found a message that impacted him at the very core of his being. It was not only exciting and even thrilling, it was MESSIANIC! - the kind of message that a world-conqueror, a RESTITUTOR ORBIS - in conjunction with a people who would submit themselves to its imperative - could use to change not only cities, states and the nation, but even the world.

This isn't to say that Bush was thinking of himself in such terms (maybe, maybe not); it's only to say that he had stumbled upon an extremely powerful RELIGIOUS message that had implicit within it potent POLITICAL connotations - AND ATTACHED TO THIS MESSAGE CAME A BODY OF FLESH AND BLOOD "TRUE BELIEVERS" WHO - IF THEY WERE REALLY SERIOUS ABOUT THEIR RHETORIC - WERE PREPARED TO PAY THE PRICE TO SEE THE WORLD BROUGHT UNDER GOD'S JURISDICTION - A MODERN-DAY ARMY OF "KNIGHT TEMPLARS!" That is, after all, what the imperative of their eschatology is all about. These people are not ethereal or vaporous in their thinking; heaven is not what they are aiming at. Conquest of the earth is what they are after. It is an imperative that is inherently built into their theology and one from which they cannot escape and remain true to their system of belief. Indeed, Wentroble writes:

"The Church has often considered heaven as home and the earth as just a place to endure ... But the apostolic churches (again, the "New Order" churches) realize that the earth belongs to the Lord. They are managers of the Lord's earth ... With this understanding, apostolic churches have a burden for POSSESSING THE LAND.

"I remember a few brief times when my husband and I rented houses. While living in those houses, we did not put new roofs on them, install new carpet, or make major repairs. The reason we did not do these things was because the houses did not belong to us.

"On the other hand, in all the houses we have owned over the past 35 years, we have always had a new roof put on when the old one leaked. New carpet was always installed when the old carpet was worn. We repaired whatever was in need of it. The reason was because we owned those houses. We take care of the things we own.



Notice here how easily people like Wentroble move from the spiritual to the political and back again Take another example: The concept of "spiritual mapping." As we just indicated, the "new dominionists" (i.e., people like the PROMISE KEEPERS) believe that they are to "take back dominion" in their cities for the Lord; as a result, they have been called upon to "dismantle" the enemy's "strongholds" in the city. "Research" and "investigations" are, therefore, necessary to "discover" where these "strongholds" are. Harold Caballeros, the "inventor" of "spiritual mapping" explains:

"When a territory has been inhabited by persons who have chosen to offer their worship to demons, the land has been contaminated and those territorial spirits have obtained a right to remain there, keeping the inhabitants captive. It is then necessary to identify the enemy and to go into spiritual battle until we obtain victory and redeem the territory. Spiritual mapping is a means toward identifying the enemy. It is our spiritual espionage."

In this endeavor, of course, "new dominionists" are not averse to "dismantling" the "strongholds" of the enemy politically when the opportunity provides itself. Indeed, they consider such "opportunities" as a gift from the Lord - an answer to their prayer. Hence, the "new dominionists" have very little trouble translating their activity from one sphere to the other and back again. THERE ARE, OF COURSE, SOME VERY, VERY SINISTER CONNOTATIONS IN ALL THIS. WHAT HAPPENS TO THOSE PEOPLE WHOM THE "NEW DOMINIONISTS" HAVE "SPIRITUALLY MAPPED" ONCE THEY (I.E., THE "NEW DOMINIONISTS") GAIN POLITICAL POWER? AFTER ALL, IF THESE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN WORSHIPPING DEMONS, ISN'T THAT THE SIN OF WITCHCRAFT? AND WHAT SHOULD ONE DO WITH A WITCH? - KILL HER (OR HIM). ISN'T THAT WHAT YOU DO WITH A WITCH?

There is certainly nothing vaporous about this. This is for real - and, again, over one-third of the population has already embraced this kind of thinking at one level or another - maybe not to this extent, but again, to one degree or another. And one should bear in mind here that in a crisis, the most extreme elements of a movement have a way of surfacing and taking control of it. And remember, this kind of thinking stems directly from the belief that a life of faith leads to the "Good Life." ONE THINGS LEADS TO ANOTHER!

Of course, one might ask himself what this kind of thinking says about Christians living in countries like China, Mozambique, Malaysia, the Sudan, etc. (to say nothing about poor Christians in this country)? - obviously, it says that they are failures in their Christian lives. And if they are failures, shouldn't they be ruled over by those Christians who are successful - after all, "success in the here and now" implies success in the Christian life; IT'S FOR THEIR OWN GOOD THAT THEY SHOULD SUBMIT THEMSELVES TO THEIR "BETTERS!" This is exactly what dominionists like North, Rushdoony, and Chilton would say. THIS IS A RATIONALE FOR CONQUEST.

THIS IS A RATIONALE FOR FORCING THE REST OF THE WORLD (I.E., THE "LESS SUCCESSFUL") INTO SUBMISSION TO THE AMERICAN "NEW WORLD ORDER SYSTEM." It gives a "religious" reason for naked economic imperialism, which no one - not even the elties - likes to admit to; instead they prefer to hide their greed and avarice behind a facade of fake Christianity. It makes one feel good about his greed - AND IN TIME, EVEN THE GREEDIEST CAN COME TO BELIEVE THAT WHAT THEY ARE DOING, THEY ARE DOING IN THE NAME OF GOD.


This is exactly the kind of "Christianity" (so-called) that Bush has embraced from the PROMISE KEEPERS. And those who think that Bush is merely "play acting" here for political advantage are wrong! Very wrong! WE NEED TO TAKE BUSH AT HIS WORD! When Bush says that he decided to run for the presidency because he "was being called like Moses," we should believe him that he means it. While he may be "playacting" about the essential nature of his Christianity, he is NOT playacting about what he has imbibed from the PROMISE KEEPERS. He believes it.

But think about what that means. The kind of Christianity that he has imbibed is not true Christianity at all. IT IS LUCIFERIC! And if it is Luciferic, then what does the Bush presidency connote for the world? What does that mean insofar as the emergence of an Antichrist-figure is concerned? One thing is for sure! - it doesn't bode well.



Listen brothers and sisters, Theology matters! It is not heavenly and "other worldly." It has very real practical and POLITICAL outcomes not only in our own personal lives, but in the lives (so to speak) of whole cities, whole nations, and the whole earth. People think, for example, that the Gospel of Affluence (i.e., the so-called "Green Gospel") that Christian leaders (so-called) like Bennie Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Hagin, Oral Roberts, etc. preach are just "innocent spiritual aberrations." But there is a hook in these "innocent aberrations" - and, as we just suggested - one thing leads to another. The "Green Gospel" leads easily and naturally to dominionism; and dominionism, when it has taken root in someone like George Bush, leads to political activity, and when this political activity has borne fruit, it can lead to militarism (such as the "War on Terrorism") and eventually to world conquest. AND THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY A GOOD THING because, as we just demonstrated, inherent in all of this kind of thinking (and activity) - from its start with the so-called "Green Gospel" to its finish with conquest and the "New World Order" - is the LUCIFERIC principle that proudly asserts -

"... I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
"I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I WILL BE LIKE THE MOST HIGH. (Isa. 14:13-14)

And if that's the case, what are we helping to create in our "War on Terrorism" that Bush has called on the country to wage against "Evil?" What we are doing is helping to create a "New World Order," but not to the glory of God, but to the glory of Satan. And there is a price to be paid for anyone - Christian or otherwise - who gets involved in this.


Now we are not necessarily making any statement here about Bush! Bush is what he is, and the future will reveal exactly what that means. What we are interested in here, however, is the existence of what Ian Kershaw says is the "READY-MADE TERRAIN" of pre-existing beliefs, prejudices, and phobias" which, when taken together, can provide the societal foundation necessary for the emergence of a new "messiah-king." And we have certainly found such "terrain" in the conservative Christian community in this country, and specifically the PROMISE KEEPERS movement. And this becomes all the more apparent when one begins to realize how nicely the worldview of the PROMISE KEEPERS fits in with the worldview of America's elite business community.

The PROMISE KEEPERS are certainly not a group given to socialist schemes aimed at the re-distribution of wealth. Not at all! They believe, as we have already demonstrated, that "as a result of God's presence in the lives of many people in a city (or a state, or a nation), laws in that city (or state, or nation) change, occult activity, immoral businesses, and crime are drastically reduced" and Christians get rich "to boot" - AND ALL THIS BECAUSE OF CHRISTIAN INTERCESSION AND WORSHIP! And if things don't get better, it's because the people are not praying hard enough. AGAIN, THIS IS CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT THE ELITES CAN SUPPORT!

And if initially the elites may have had reservations about the wisdom of linking themselves up too tightly to the Christian Right (and Bush), if they at first vacillated between the "moderates" and the "Christian Right," one must excuse them - they are, after all, not "True Believers" when it comes to anything spiritual.




But Bush believed, and he took what he learned from Tony Evans and the PROMISE KEEPERS and soon began calling America's Christians to become more involved in politics. And as he did so, he initiated a process of translating the PROMISE KEEPERS' message from a religious "call to arms" into a POLITICAL "battle cry" that he began using to create a "godly army" (his words) to "RENEW" not only the nation, but perhaps even the world.

Bush first tried this new rhetoric out in his campaign for governor of the state of Texas in 1994 when he began to preach what Gail Sheehy calls "PROMISE KEEPER-LIKE SERMONS" (again, Sheehy's words) in many of Houston's largest mega-churches - laying the blame for America's "FAILED CULTURE" on the excesses of his generation in the '60s:

"The culture of my generation, our generation, has clearly said, 'If it feels good, do it, and be sure to blame somebody else if you have a problem'."

To counter this "failed culture," Bush called Christians to enlist in a "godly army" (again, Bush's words) dedicated to restoring "religious values" not only to the nation, but to the world.

Sheehy says that by using this new rhetoric (something no president, not even Reagan, had ever done before, at least not on such a deliberate and premeditated basis) Bush began tapping into a mindset in the culture that, as we have already indicated, had grown increasingly weary of the hedonism of the last forty years (a weariness that the Clintons and their cabal of hard-core "libertines" and "debauchers" had done so much to exacerbated), and had also grown intensely concerned with the degree to which the culture had been feminized and enervated (softened). Bush gave a kind of legitimacy to a genuine longing throughout society by men (and a good many women too) for a restoration of what they considered to be their rightful place of authority not only in the family, but in the community and the nation, even to the point where he began - like his PROMISE KEEPERS counterparts - urging men to "take back" authority from their wives, and telling women to "let your man be a man."

"Amazed." That is the word his father used when Bush whipped Ann Richards in 1994 using his new PROMISE KEEPERS rhetoric. In 1998 Bush - again using the rhetoric of the Christian men's movement - trampled his Democratic opponent, Garry Mauro, to be re-elected governor with 68 percent of the vote.

In both the 1994 and 1998 Republican Party conventions, the Christian Right were what carried the day for Bush. In fact, the conventions themselves resembled PROMISE KEEPERS meetings. Delegates prayed in the aisles and even witnessed to reporters in the press pit. Open bars in "hospitality rooms" - a venerable tradition at Texas political conventions - were converted into gourmet ice-cream-sundae bars where chefs whipped up high-cholesterol, custom-order deserts. Bush and the PROMISE KEEPERS had tasted victory - and they were ready now for the presidency.

So were the elites. Here was a way for the Republicans (and the elites) to trump the economic message that Clinton and the Democrats had so successfully used against them in the past two elections. Religion trumps economics! It certainly seemed that way. As a result, after his re-election as governor of Texas, while Bush was in California, he was approached by a member of the ultra elite, George Schultz - former president of the giant Bechtel Corporation and who had also served as Ronald Reagan's secretary of state. He reportedly told him,

"I think you ought to be president. Twenty-five years ago Reagan stood on the same spot, and I said the same thing to him. Now I am saying it to you."

Sheehy reports that in essence what Schultz had done on behalf of the Republican elites was "privately anoint him as president."

Bush returned shortly thereafter to Texas and began mulling over a run for the presidency. Bush later described his musings as a religious epiphany. HIS MUSINGS HAD "PROMISE KEEPERS" WRITTEN ALL OVER THEM. Bush wrote concerning the experience:

"Today, two weeks after Jeb's inauguration, in my church in downtown Austin, Pastor Mark Craig (Bush's pastor), was telling me that my re-election was the first Governor to win back-to-back, four-year terms in the history of the State of Texas. He said it was a beginning, not an end ... People are starved for faithfulness. He talked of the need for honesty in government. He warned that leaders who cheat on their wives will cheat their country, will cheat their colleagues, will cheat themselves.

"Pastor Craig said that America is starved for honest leaders. He told the story of Moses who had been asked by God to lead his people to a land of milk and honey. Moses had a lot of reasons to shirk the task. As the Pastor told it, Moses' basic reaction was, 'Sorry, God, I'm busy. I've got a family. I've got sheep to tend. I've got a life. Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh, and bring the sons of Israel out of Egypt? The people won't believe me', he protested. 'I'm not a very good speaker. Oh, my Lord, send, I pray, some other person', Moses pleaded.

"But God did not, and Moses ultimately did His bidding, leading his people through forty years of wilderness and wandering, relying on God for strength and direction and inspiration. 'People are starved for leadership', Pastor Craig said, 'starved for leaders who have ethical and moral courage'. 'It is not enough to have an ethical compass to know right from wrong', he argued. 'America needs leaders who have the moral courage to do what is right for the right reason. It's not always easy or convenient for leaders to step forward', he acknowledged. 'Remember, even Moses had doubts'.

"'HE WAS TALKING TO YOU'," my mother later said. The pastor was, of course, talking to all of us, challenging each one of us to make the most of our lives, to assume the mantle of leadership and responsibility wherever we find it. He was calling on us to use whatever power we have, in business, in politics, in our communities, and in our families, to do good for the right reason. And his sermon spoke directly to my heart and my life ... There was no magic moment of decision. After talking with my family during the Christmas holidays, then hearing this rousing sermon, to make most of every moment ... I gradually felt more comfortable with the prospect of a presidential campaign. My family would love me, my faith would sustain me, no matter what.

"During the more than half century of my life, we have seen an unprecedented decay in our American culture, a decay that has eroded the foundations of our collective values and moral standards of conduct. Our sense of personal responsibility has declined dramatically, just as the role and responsibility of the federal government have increased. The changing culture blurred the sharp contrast between right and wrong and created a new standard of conduct: 'If it feels good, do it, and 'If you've got a problem, blame somebody else. Individuals are not responsible for their actions', the new culture has said. 'We are all victims of forces beyond our control'. We have gone from a culture of sacrifice and saving to a culture obsessed with grabbing all the gusto. We went from accepting responsibility to assigning blame. As government did more and more, individuals were required to do less and less. The new culture said: 'if people were poor, the government should feed them. If someone had no house, the government should provide one. If criminals are not responsible for their acts, then the answers are not prisons, but social programs ....

"For our culture to change, it must change one heart, one soul, and one conscience at a time. Government can spend money, but it cannot put hope in our hearts or a sense of purpose in our lives ... But government should welcome the active involvement of people who are following a religious imperative to love their neighbors through after school programs, child care, drug treatment, maternity group homes, and a range of other services. Supporting these men and women - the soldiers in the armies of compassion - is the next bold step of welfare reform, because I know that changing hearts will change our entire society'.

"During the opening months of my presidential campaign, I have traveled our country and my heart has been warmed. My experiences have reinvigorated my faith in the greatness of Americans. They have reminded me that societies are renewed from the bottom up, not the top down. Everywhere I go, I see people of love and faith, taking time to help a neighbor in need ... These people and thousands like them are the heart and soul and greatness of America. And I want to do my part. I am running for President because I believe America must seize this moment, America must lead. We must give our prosperity a greater purpose, a purpose of peace and freedom and hope. We are a great nation of good and loving people. And together, we have a charge to keep."



And from start to finish, Bush's campaign for the presidency was a Christian affair, and Sheehy says that as the campaign warmed up, the rhetoric it was using sounded -

"... more like an evangelical movement than a political campaign."

And that's exactly what Bush wanted his campaign to sound like. Over and over again, he could be found remarking -

"... to truly change the culture we must have a spiritual renewal in the United States."

Another time he told Connecticut state-party members at a fund-raiser in June of 2000,

"We are about the quality of life ... love thy neighbors. We understand the limitations of government; government can hand out money, but churches ... are places that warm the cold. The great challenge is to work to change the culture, unleash the armies of compassion."

Again, all these remarks sounded like they had been pulled straight out of a PROMISE KEEPERS manual - and essentially they had been.

Many pundits let all this pass and simply didn't report on it. They thought - like Lacey Neuhaus - that he would discard his "Christianity" after the election. They believed that Bush's seeming devotion to his Christian allies was nothing more than a "put on" - a useful device in dismissing questions about his "youthful indiscretions." All he had to say was - since he had accepted Christ - his life was now changed. He was a new person, and his earlier, irresponsible conduct was now irrelevant. BUT CONTRARY TO WHAT THE PUNDITS BELIEVED, BUSH HELD FIRM TO HIS CHRISTIAN ALLIES, AND THEY HELD TIGHTLY TO HIM.


The early going for the Republican Party nomination proved to be a particularly difficult time. Bush was attacked as an "intellectual lightweight," and a "ner-do-well" trying to ride into the presidency on the coattails of his father. Senator John McCain of Arizona hounded him every step of the way. By the time the campaign reached South Carolina, many political pundits were "counting him out." But his Christian allies rallied to him in South Carolina. Thousands of Christian volunteers poured into the state from everywhere in the Union to help turn out the vote for Bush and against McCain. McCain saw immediately what was happening, and he attempted to discredit Bush's Christian allies.

On Monday, February 28, 2000, McCain delivered a brutal attack against what he considered to be the "stranglehold" Christian conservatives had on the Republican Party. He singled out Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell as special targets of his angry assault - calling them "self-appointed leaders" of intolerance and religious bigotry. He compared Robertson and Falwell to "union bosses who have subordinated the interests of working families to their own (religio-political) ambitions. [In this connection, it should be noted that there is nothing more damning in Republican circles than to called a "union boss" - "them's fighting words."]

Speaking to an enthusiastic crowd of 4,000 at a high school only a few miles from the headquarters of the Christian Coalition in Virginia, McCain said,

"The politics of division and slander (presumably practiced by Bush's Christian allies) are not our values. They are a corrupting influence on ... politics, and those who practice them in the name of the Republican Party or in the name of America shame ... our party and our country."

He continued by saying,

"Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan and Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell on the right."

Falwell and Robertson were no better than Farrakhan and Sharpton? Is that what McCain meant to say? - NOTHING COULD HAVE BEEN BETTER CALCULATED BY McCAIN AND HIS "MODERATE" COHORTS TO INFLAME BUSH'S CHRISTIAN ALLIES MORE THAN SUCH A COMPARISON. The entire Christian community in the United States rose up in wrath against McCain and delivered South Carolina to Bush in a decisive victory. State after state followed - all delivered to Bush by his aroused Christian allies. Throughout the campaign - whenever Bush got into trouble - he returned to his Christian base to get him out of it.


Finally, when Bush was "tested" in Florida against Gore, his Christian allies were there too - fighting for him like banshee roosters. The country had never seen anything like it before. Christians, armed with homemade signs and wearing T-shirts reading "Bush Recount Team," seemed to be everywhere. This was something one would expect the Left to do - i.e., demonstrate in the streets - but not button-down Republicans. Democratic vice presidential candidate Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman likened the Christians to a "mob," saying that they were pressuring Florida recount officials. Christian activists milled around everywhere in Florida passing out signs and T-shirts. In Fort Lauderdale, many Christian activists said they had received automated phone calls from church officials urging them to rally outside the courthouses in Broward County and in Miami-Dade.

Whenever Gore supporters tried to do TV interviews, Christian activists blew whistles and shouted through bullhorns to disrupt them. Gore supporters called the Christian activists an "illegal mob." Only a few Gore supporters braved the relentless shouting of the Christian activists - "No more Gore! No more Gore!" Democrats thought they were witnessing a coup.




It worked! Bush won the presidency - but just barely. The electoral margin was razor thin - and insofar as the popular vote was concerned, Bush lost the election by more than 500,000 votes.

Most pundits thought that, because of the closeness of the election, Bush would have to govern from the center - and that, as a result (and as we indicated earlier), he would jettison his Christian allies almost immediately after he got to the White House. This is what Reagan did. This is what his father did.

But the pundits were wrong! They had underestimated Bush's devotion to his Christian base. His PROMISE KEEPERS-kind of Christianity was for real. He was a "true believer!" - something Washington is not used to. Bush set about proving them wrong almost immediately when he nominated Sen. John Ashcroft, a devout Pentecostal from Missouri, to be Attorney General. Ashcroft was not just any Pentecostal believer, both his father and his grandfather had been high officials in the Assemblies of God - one of the largest Pentecostal denominations in the country. Moreover, Ashcroft embraced fervently a belief in dominionism. He was a perfect fit for Bush and his PROMISE KEEPERS-style of Christianity.

At the time, many observers made much of the fact that Bush first offered the nomination for Attorney General to Marc Racicot of Montana, a "moderate." But those who know Bush say that he knew that Racicot would turn it down. They say that he had been "forced" to offer the nomination to Racicot as payback for an old political favor. This is what Howard Fineman and Michale Isikoff of Newsweek believe. Both say that Bush was relieved when Racicot said no - and no sooner had Racicot opted out, then Bush was on the phone to Ashcroft who, Fineman says,


Ashcroft's ascent to power launched a virtual holy war in Washington - a kind of "last stand" for the so-called "moderates," one that Isikoff at the time believed threatened the first days of the presidency. Like Bush, Ashcroft was no wilting flower insofar as his Christianity was concerned. He once declared - at Bob Jones University no less - that "America has no king but king Jesus." With Ashcroft on board along with his old Christian allies, Karl Rove (who is also a long-time friend of Ashcroft's) and Don Evans, his old friend from Midland days, the Christian credentials of the Bush presidency were solidified. All these men are TRUE BELIEVERS! And all these men are consumed with the prospect of "returning America to Christ" (or at least, their version of Christ) - AND NOW THE EVENTS OF SEPTEMBER 11TH HAVE MADE THAT A VERY REAL POSSIBILITY.


But we need to ask ourselves what will happen when these men - and millions more TRUE BELIEVERS like them - finally solidify their control of this nation in the name of a PROMISE KEEPERS-kind of Christianity? THIS IS, AFTER ALL, THE MOST POWERFUL NATION ON EARTH - AND WHOEVER CONTROLS IT CAN ULTIMATELY CONTROL THE WORLD. Indeed, Charles Krauthammer, speaking concerning this very matter, remarked:

"What the 1991 war against Iraq proved is that no national army or combination of armies in the world today could stand up against the military might of the United States; and what the war in Afghanistan has proved is that no guerrilla army can do so either."

America rules the world now, and no one can make war against her - so that now the prophecy is fulfilled that says,

"... who is able to make war with her ..." (Rev. 13:4)

So again, I repeat, what will happen when these men - and millions more TRUE BELIEVERS like them - solidify their control of this nation in the name of a PROMISE KEEPERS-kind of Christianity?

And don't think that we are merely dealing with hypotheticals here - the fact is, THE EVENTS OF SEPTEMBER 11th (AND THE RESULTANT "WAR ON TERRORISM") HAS NOW MADE THIS A VERY REAL POSSIBILITY - INDEED, ALMOST A CERTAINTY. The "War on Terrorism" provides the "cover" now for Bush to finish consolidating (in the name of a PROMISE KEEPERS-style of Christianity) America's "New World Order System."

The elites, of course, have always been pressing towards economic globalism. But their efforts were bound to stall (and they did) in the absence of a wider imperative, a wider "world-view" - after all, what was in it insofar as average people were concerned, especially average people in the United States. The fact is, the Left had pretty much brought the elite's process of economic globalization to a standstill, and the efforts by the elites to convince ordinary people that globalism was in their interest (an UTTER lie) had come to naught. People everywhere - from Brazil to Columbia, from Zambia to Egypt, from the Czech Republic to France, from India to Indonesia - had come to realize that globalization was nothing more than a very selfish effort by the elites to further enrich themselves.


Now, in the name of the "War on Terrorism" and a PROMISE KEEPERS-kind of Christianity, American military power can be brought to bear against recalcitrant nations throughout the world that refuse to submit to America's "New World Order System." And this power can be utilized without fear that it will be hindered either internally (by citizens within the country), or externally (by opponents outside the country). Indeed, speaking to a hushed and very subdued audience at the United Nations two weeks ago, Bush made it very clear what would happen to those nations that refuse to "toe the line" insofar as the "War on Terrorism" is concerned:" They would be cut off from the "community of nations," and they might even become a target of the war. And insofar as dissension within the country is concerned, anyone who dares to dissent from what's going on today is in grave danger of being labeled "unpatriotic" - and, in Christian circles, of being labeled "unchristian" - so that the prophecy is fulfilled that says -

"They shall put you out of the ... (churches): yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.
"And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me." (John 16:2-3)

That's pretty heavy stuff! Jail or death for not going along with what's happening? But, of course, that's the logical extension of what Rick Joyner meant when he wrote ominously,

"Some pastors and leaders who continue to resist this tide ... will be removed from their place."

And again,

"... there will be many 'stumbling blocks' circulating in the church ... Those serving in leadership must trust their discernment and remove the 'stumbling blocks'."

Can there really be any doubt as to the logical end of such statements? - a person would have to be an UTTER and TOTALLY unrepentant Pollyanna not to see it. And that's exactly where the country is apparently headed. That's where syndicated columnist Richard Cohen (who had supported Ashcroft's nomination for Attorney General earlier in the year) thinks we're headed, as he explained in a column that appeared throughout the country on Monday, the 19th of November, 2001:

"Attorney General John Ashcroft ... (is no longer considered) anymore as the comforting head of the Justice Department but, instead as the SCARIEST MAN IN GOVERNMENT. I see him as the director of the Office of Homeland Insecurity ... Ever since September 11th, Ashcroft has functioned as the real-life equivalent of the prefect of police in "Casablanca" - rounding up "the usual suspects" and, like him, doing so without the usual legal safeguards. Their exact number is not known, nor are their names. They exist in an American gulag ... [For some time now, the figure for those who have been rounded up and not yet released has been estimated at about 1,200 prisoners; recently, however, A NEW FIGURE HAS SURFACED WHICH PLACES THE NUMBER AT OVER 5000. And contrary to what most people think, a good number of American citizens are believed to be included in this figure - they are not all "non-citizens." In addition, it should be noted that on the 28th of November, Ashcroft gave a reduced figure of about 700 "that are still in federal detention." That does not necessarily mean they have been released. The difference between and among all these figures (i.e., 700, 1,200, and 5000) can be accounted for on the basis of "word games" and bureaucratic obfuscation that the Justice Department is engaged in having to do with how prisoners are being classified, where they are being held, how they are being charged, and so forth. Civil libertarians believe the higher figure. I prefer that figure as well, given the reputation the feds have for telling the truth. - editor.]

"This is serious stuff.

"More recently, Ashcroft broadened his powers to the point where much of the legal community snapped awake. In the name of battling terrorism, he authorized the Federal Bureau of Prisons (where all these people are held) 'to monitor mail or communications with attorneys ... subject to specific procedural safeguards'. And what are those safeguards? Nothing to trouble a judge about. The feds will decide the matter for themselves ...

"The point to remember here is that not one of ... (these prisoners) has been convicted of anything. In many cases, they have not even been indicted ... Ashcroft acted within the spirit of the recently enacted, Orwellian-named USA Patriot Act, which is a broad expansion of the government's police powers ... There is a virtual certainty that ... (these powers) will be tenaciously retained (and expanded upon) by the government (in the foreseeable future)."

Now that's power! That's real power! - and all in the hands of men who feel that they have a divine calling to "save the world for Christ and the church." But one thing is for sure, it is no Christ we know. It's not the Christ of the Bible. Again, it's the "false Christ" the Bible warns about in Matthew 24:

"For there shall arise FALSE CHRISTS, and FALSE PROPHETS, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect." (Matt. 24:24)


Again, this is serious stuff! - and there is no escaping its implications. Two very, very serious errors are "in play" here with extremely dangerous connotations for us PERSONALLY. Listen, brothers and sisters! - life is not a movie that we can watch and not get involved with. As we indicated in the Antipas Papers,

"God's plans do not exist for our convenience - they will come to pass whether we approve of them or not. In the long run, it only matters to us - AND TIME FOR RECOGNIZING THIS FACT IS RUNNING OUT!"

What all these men - and not just Bush, Ashcroft, Rove, Evans, etc., but their millions and millions of Christian followers throughout the country - are aiming at is, as Wentroble puts it, setting up a "New World Order." But what do we as Christians have to do with such a thing? The Bible says:

"The whole world lieth in the evil one." (1 John 5:19)

That means the WHOLE world! Satan controls the entire world. As God's children, we have been called out of the world for there is nothing that we can do to make it any better. The church is a CALLING OUT FROM the world (John 15:19; 17:14-16; Gal. 6:14; James 4:4) - she is called out to witness that SHE IS NOT OF THIS WORLD, but of heaven; that she is united to a glorified Christ in heaven (Eph. 1:18-23; Eph 2:6), and not of this world, even as He is not of this world (John 18:36). That's why Jesus said:

"My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight ... but ... my kingdom (is) not from hence." (John 18:36)

And that's why He further said:

"Do not love the world, or ANYTHING in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For EVERYTHING in the world ... comes not from the Father ..." (1 John 2:15-16)

Satan is called the "PRINCE OF THIS WORLD" (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11). What is meant by the term "world?" The word "world" is the translation of the Greek word kosmos, which means an harmonious order or arrangement, and it is used in three ways in the New Testament:

  1. First, it means the MATERIAL UNIVERSE (Acts 17:14; Matt. 13:35; John 1:10; Mark 16:15).
  2. Second, it means -
    1. THE INHABITANTS OF THE WORLD as whole (John 1:10; 3:16; 12:19; 17:21);
  3. Third, it means the whole circle of WORLDLY goods, endowments, riches, advantages, pleasures, which though hollow and fleeting, stir our desires and seduce us from God, so that they are obstacles to the cause of Christ (I John 3:17; Matt. 16:26; I Cor 2:12; 3:19, 7:31; Titus 2:12; II Peter 1:4; 2:20; I John 2:15-17; James 1:27). It is the world of our split level homes, two cars, good careers, good educations, bank accounts, vacations, etc. It is when these pleasures and even so-called necessities of life "possess our hearts" and crowd out our commitment to the Lord and to His people that they have in reality become part of the kosmos.

Moreover, the word kosmos, taken in conjunction with the three meanings described above, implies that behind all this there is a mind - the PRINCE OF THIS WORLD - which gives order and arrangement to it all. Again, John says:

"The whole KOSMOS [as described above] lieth in the evil one." (John 5:19)

He is the KOSMOKRATER or world-ruler - a word which, however, appears only once, and is used in the plural of his lieutenants: "the WORLD RULERS OF THIS DARKNESS" (Eph. 6:12). The world [kosmos] is Satan's grand creation and he has directed all his strength and ingenuity into causing it to flourish. To what end? To capture man's allegiance and draw him to himself. He has one object - to establish his own dominion in human hearts worldwide! WHOSE PURPOSE, THEN, DO THE "NEW DOMINIONISTS," THE PROMISE KEEPERS, GEORGE BUSH, JOHN ASHCROFT, CARL ROVE, DON EVANS, ETC. SERVE WHEN THEY ATTEMPT TO SET UP A "NEW WORLD ORDER?"

Is this such a hard thing to see? If you don't see it, it's because you have chosen NOT to see it - so that in you -

"... is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive ..." (Matt. 13:14)

I tell you the truth! I somberly warn you: Those who involve themselves in a PROMISE KEEPERS-kind of Christianity have involved themselves in LUCIFERIC sin! [One needs to remember what lies at the core of PROMISE KEEPERS thinking - again, it's not without reason we spent so much time on that matter!]

Again, I plead with you - LOOK WHAT'S HAPPENING! OPEN UP YOUR EYES! We have now reached the cusp of the "end of the age." The events of September 11th have changed everything for us. PROPHECY NO LONGER HAS MUCH TO DO WITH THINGS FUTURE, BUT WITH THINGS PRESENT!


Listen dear brothers and sisters in Christ, irresistible forces are now "in play" - both in this country and in the world at large - that are propelling us in a direction from which there may be no return. The "War on Terrorism" is growing in intensity and the people in charge of this war have no thought of stopping with Afghanistan. What's next? - Iraq? the Sudan? Syria? Iran? - the whole world? And what about this country? There are already five thousand people in jail (not just the 1,000 that is commonly reported), and they are being kept in secret detention with no one able to contact them - and, I repeat, not all of them are non-citizens. Where will it end? Indeed, how many of you who are reading this material right now would dare to speak out in your community and in your churches against what's happening? Not many, I would imagine. And why not? - BECAUSE YOU ARE AFRAID! BE HONEST HERE! - ISN'T THAT THE CASE? OF COURSE IT IS! THAT SHOULD GIVE YOU SOME IDEA OF HOW FAR DOWN THE ROAD WE HAVE TRAVELED IN RECENT MONTHS.

Listen, brothers and sisters, eternity is at hand - YOUR eternity! What you do now will affect you for all time. You will never get away from it. Your actions today will follow you into the "Kingdom of Heaven," and will determine whether you are known as the "greatest" or the "least" in that glorious realm. (Matt. 5:19) The fact is, we can't pretend that we don't know what's happening. We do know! - and this knowledge hangs like some kind of biblical sword of Damocles over our heads. To do nothing is to invite it to fall on us. The Bible says:

Son of man, speak to the children of thy people, and say unto them, When I bring the sword upon a land, if the people of the land take a man of their coasts, and set him for their watchman:
If when he seeth the sword come upon the land, he blow the trumpet, and warn the people;
Then whosoever heareth the sound of the trumpet, and taketh not warning; if the sword come, and take him away, his blood shall be upon his own head.
He heard the sound of the trumpet, and took not warning; his blood shall be upon him. But he that taketh warning shall deliver his soul.
But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; BUT HIS BLOOD WILL I REQUIRE AT THE WATCHMAN'S HAND.

We are being called to warn people everywhere about what's happening (believers and unbelievers alike) - even at the cost of our own security, our own wealth, and our own lives. To this end, we urge you - we implore you - stand up and be counted; take this material, copy it, and pass it out in your churches, in your family, in your communities - everywhere! I have no doubt what will happen to you when you do - you will be ostracized, and worse! But do it anyway!

One dear brother e-mailed us recently from Canada concerning this matter. He said:

"I came across this website several weeks ago. I can hardly believe what I have been reading! The articles have moved me so deeply that I find it very difficult to think about anything else. God's Word has been opened up and the light of the truth has shone deep into my heart. I was raised in a Christian home, so I have been exposed to the Bible all my life. But never before until now have I had as good an understanding of the Word. How could I have been kept in such utter darkness about such important parts of the Scriptures? I remember as a child and later on as a teenager I had so many questions about the Bible, and the answer I received most often from pastors and other leaders was 'we can't understand everything in God's Word'. Well that was understood by me even at a young age. I wasn't asking to understand the whole Bible. All I wanted was to have a clearer picture in my head about God and His Son Jesus Christ, the plan of salvation, and some accurate understanding of the 'last days'. I finally have that now and as I type out this e-mail I can hardly hold back the tears of joy. God has answered my prayer to help me as a father and husband to make sense out of Sept. 11/01 so that I might provide answers to my family. This ministry has helped my family and me more than I can say.


Your friend in Christ,


What a wonderful note! What a wonderful letter of encouragement to us all! And believe me, the fear he exhibits about what would probable happen to him in his church and community is a fear that we must all face! IT IS REAL! Nevertheless, what else should any of us expect? True Christianity is NOT popular - especially to those who are religious among us. It was, after all, the "established religious community" of Christ's day that persecuted Christ and finally killed Him. Remember what the Lord said:

"If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.
"If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
"Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also." (John 15:18-20)

Listen to me, brothers and sisters, with every passing week and month, the country (and the world) moves ever more towards the installation of a "CHRISTIAN-TERROR-STATE" - all in the name of Christ! Again I ask, where will it ultimately lead? - to a kind of Fourth Reich where all those who disagree with the "established religion" will be ostracized?

It's a trite but true saying, the way to hell is paved with good intentions! - and more murder and slaughter have been carried out in the name of God than we as Christians might care to admit. Maybe there's a good reason why secularists and unbelievers are afraid of Christians; maybe that's why they refuse to be drawn to Christ - they can't hear His gentle voice calling them over the din and slaughter and mayhem we have created.

I hope and pray that God will raise up many of you to speak out against what's happening. People everywhere are waiting to hear - maybe not the ones in your churches, and maybe not those who call themselves "Christian" - but they are there, waiting to hear from you. Do what Christ did. He started in the synagogues. Not many listened to Him at the time; they even tried to throw him off a cliff. But He kept at it, and in doing so He raised up quite a din by His preaching, and people were drawn to Him because of that, and some began listening. That's what will happen to you. Start preaching where you are at; copy this material and pass it out! in your church (even though you think no one is reading it), in your community. As you do, you too will cause a din. And they will threaten to throw you off a cliff too. But nothing can happen to you unless God permits it. You are in the hands of God, and eventually you will find people who will listen.

There is no easy way in this matter. There was no easy way for Christ, and there will be no easy way for you either. As Jesus said,

"The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you." (John 15:20)

And so I say to all of you now -

alea iacta est
[the die is cast]

More next time!

Until then, God bless you,

S.R. Shearer,
Antipas Ministries

We need your help to spread the word concerning Antipas Ministries and the eschatological viewpoint it represents; WE NEED YOUR HELP BECAUSE WE DO NOT "LINK" WITH OTHER SO-CALLED "CHRISTIAN" WEBSITES which are, for the most part, "in the tank" insofar as their loyalty to the United States is concerned - a loyalty that has made them partners in the BLOODY trail the American military has left in its TERROR-RIDDEN rampage throughout the world, as well as making them partners in the abject poverty that American corporations have imposed on the peoples and nations the American military machine has ravaged - A BLOODY, TERROR-RIDDEN RAMPAGE THAT HAS TO A LARGE DEGREE BEEN CARRIED OUT IN THE NAME OF THE "PRINCE OF PEACE." [Please see our articles, "The Third World as a Model for the New World Order," Inside the American New World Order System" and "The American Empire: The Corporate / Pentagon / CIA / Missionary Archipelago."]




© Antipas Ministries