By: S.R. Shearer
November 9, 2008

"We never, until war, thought of ourselves as Christians. We were Yugoslavs and multiculturalists. But when we began to be persecuted because we were Christian, things changed. The definition of who we are today has been determined by those who persecuted us."

- Thoughts of a school teacher
in the former Yugoslavia

"Then He [i.e., Christ] continued by saying to them, Nation [ethnos - i.e., ethnic group: for example, blacks, Hispanics, whites, etc.] will rise against nation [ethnos], and kingdom [country] against kingdom [country] ..."

- Luke 21:10)


There is much talk from the Obama camp and the liberal media that the U.S. has entered into a "New Age;" that the divisions of the past have been permanently "done away with;" and that gays, feminists, blacks, Hispanics, Muslims and on and on ad infinitum can find "warmth" and "inclusion" in a new America.  It is said that the old Euro-centric, "Christian" culture of the past - which, according to many of Obama's followers, did so much to divide the nation - is in the process of being swept away, and that a new multiculturalism is replacing it.  That's what the political and cultural emissaries of Obama's new society are proclaiming.

At most, however, they are speaking for only 52.3 percent of the populace - and that's a very slim majority of the population from which to make such prognostications; indeed, it's a far cry from the 61.1 percent of the popular vote that Lyndon Johnson, the last "great Democratic liberal," got in 1964. It even falls short of the 53.4 percent of the popular vote that George Bush I got in 1988.

NOTE: In this connection, it should be noted that Clinton and Carter - the last two Democratic presidents - governed from the Center, not the Liberal Left, as Obama, despite his protestations to the contrary, is expected to do.

What should be even more troubling insofar as liberals are concerned is that Obama lost the white vote by a whopping 12 percent - and that in an environment for Republicans that should have swept Democrats into power with a mandate that surpassed the one given to Johnson in 1964, especially considering the fact that President Bush's popularity with the voters was one of the worst on record; that the country was involved in two unpopular wars; and that a financial meltdown had turned the people sharply against the GOP (the Republican Party).

NOTE: One should bear in mind here that the "white vote" still accounts for close to 75 percent of the American electorate, and that many who "style" themselves as Latino for the sake of convenience could - given a violent right-wing swing - just as easily pass themselves off as white, bringing the so-called "white" portion of the population to 80 percent. It should be remembered in this connection that most so-called "Hispanics" - especially those who had been "assimilated" or were the products of "mixed marriages" - were counted as "white" thirty years ago.


It is easy to see, given these realities, that this does not augur well for Obama, and that will be especially true once his administration begins to run into trouble, as all new presidential administrations eventually do; all this plus the fact that Obama will be subjected to an immediate assault by the conservative pundits of "Talk-Radio" and Fox News - entities that did so much to sink the Clinton administration a decade ago. [Please see our last "main article," "The Crash of Today's Real Estate and Stock Markets and What It Will Inevitable Mean Politically" to get an idea insofar as the direction the country is headed politically and economically; also, please see the following articles for an understanding of the vicious, frenzied nature of the Right's attack against Clinton during the 1990s: "The Olson Salon: A Case Study of the Machinations of the Religious Right," "The Right Wing Panics," "The Rutherford Institute and R.J. Rushdoony" and "Richard Mellon Scaife: the Evil that Money Can Do."]

The fact is, Obama won by squeezing out just about every minority vote possible in the country, and cobbling these minorities together with a relatively small white "yuppie elite" vote and the votes of some blue-collar whites who have been ravaged by the economic downturn and who, as a result, had gotten over Obama's reference to them as "Bible-totters," "gun-lovers" and immigrant-haters." Given these truths, it's very doubtful that Obama can squeeze many more votes out of his black and Latino constituencies (there are not that many more votes to be gotten here), AND IT IS EXTREMELY DOUBTFUL THAT HE CAN WIN OVER MORE WHITE VOTERS -  especially in view of the fact that almost 75 percent of the white voters who did not vote for Obama are Religious Right conservatives who are not prepared to make any cultural and social concessions to the left-wing constituencies that form the backbone of Obama's support.


It is here - it is precisely here - that one must come to grips with the intractability of the divide that separates white, Religious Right conservatives from Obama's followers: Most Americans are used to thinking that almost any issue can be worked out if people will only sit down and talk; unfortunately, that is not always the case, and that is particularly true with regard to the cultural issues that separate Obama's followers from the Religious Right. Even a liberal like Ronald Dworkin believes that with regard to issues such as abortion and homosexuality, there may be no middle ground - and Americans are only kidding themselves in thinking that there is one. [Please see our article, "The Creation of an Enemy Absolute - Beginning First with the Gay and Lesbian Community."]

Alan Wolfe, professor of sociology and political science at Boston University concurs, he writes,

"... [A]bortion [and homosexuality] are matters of ‘high' politics, involving fundamental questions about the definition of public and private, liberty and authority, and the meaning and purpose of life ... At this principled elevation, abortion [and homosexuality] present a tragic conflict, like the Civil War [and the question of slavery]. Each side to the debate understands itself, and is understood by its antagonists, as standing for a worldview that cannot be compromised."

Wolfe says that under these circumstances, our national discussions on questions of morality, religion and culture have become a "language game that has the form of meaningful communication, but is in fact merely another form of aggression" against those with whom we disagree. 

Wolfe explains:

"The problem begins with intellectuals, who routinely violate fundamental democratic principles in the way they balance the competing interests at stake. Both a liberal such as Laurence Tribe of the Harvard Law School and a conservative such as R.C. Sproul, an evangelical theologian, are incapable of recognizing the legitimacy of their opponent's position ... Tribe is explicitly anti-democratic. To him, the whole purpose of a constitution and a Supreme Court is to act as a check on popular positions. Sproul, by contrast, sees government as having no other purpose than to embody God's will - not exactly a formula for pluralism or religious liberty."

James Davison Hunter, one of the few American writers who is trying to understand the culture wars rather than fight them, agrees with both Dworkin and Wolfe; he believes that new fault lines have emerged in U.S. society which inevitably have set citizen against citizen over questions of identity, sexuality, and private behavior - questions which do not lend themselves easily to discussion and compromise.


In this regard, Hunter believes that a fundamental change has occurred within the larger conservative religious community in America; they are no longer the fractured community they once were - a fact that had enabled liberals to run roughshod over them for so many years; they have united. Protestants have joined forces with other Protestants, and Protestants with Catholics, and Catholics with Mormons in an effort to confront the forces of "secularism," "globalism," and "modernism" which they believe threaten to inundate and render irrelevant their larger Christian community. Under such circumstances, their own "inter-family differences" have been set aside in order to confront what is perceived to be a larger threat: The destruction of their community by forces which they see as inimical to their continued existence as a meaningful and viable community.

Hunter apparently agrees with Dr. Samuel Huntington, Eaton Professor of the Science of Government and Director of the John M. Olin Institute for Strategic Studies at Harvard University. Huntington says that -

"... [W]orld politics are entering a new phase ... [in which] the great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural ... The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics ..." [Please see our article, "Civilization Conflict: Wars and Rumors of Wars."]

It is in this ominous context that the questions of abortion, homosexuality, family, single motherhood, feminism, etc. must be viewed. Seen from this perspective, there can be no middle ground. Each side is pushing for total victory.

For now, the Secular Left has gained the ascendancy; but not by much given the fact that so much was working against the Right - specifically, the economy, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc. And while - for now - the Religious Right has retreated back into a state of sullen shock, they are only biding their time until they gain another chance to "cleanse" America of Obama's followers.


IT IS IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REALITY THAT WE MUST LOOK BEHIND THE "CALM" THAT SEEMS TO BE PREVAILING AFTER THE ELECTION, AND EXAMINE WHAT IS HAPPENING JUST BELOW THE SURFACE IN "WHITE AMERICA."  LIBERALS ARE MAKING A HUGE MISTAKE IN THINKING THAT THE SILENT SHOCK INTO WHICH THE RIGHT HAS RETREATED IS ANYTHING ELSE BUT A SULLEN, TRUCULENT RAGE.  Moreover, when the gay and lesbian community believes it can rob "Traditional America" of its one small victory in the election of 2008 - i.e., "Proposition 8:" overturning the California Supreme Court's ruling that gays and lesbians can marry - and when they begin to "lay siege" to the Mormon Temple in Los Angeles, they are massively compounding their error. [Please see the following videos and pictures:

            (There is a short advertisement in front of this video - but it is very good) ] ]

NOTE: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [the Mormons] is part of a coalition of conservative groups backing Proposition 8, which overturned the California Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage in the nation's most populous state by amending the state constitution to limit marriage to a man and a woman. Mormons were active participants in the campaign both as volunteers and financial contributors, giving an estimated 43 percent - some $8.4 million - to the Proposition 8 campaign, according to the Web site There are about 770,000 Mormon church members in California, but Mormons from outside the state were encouraged to give money and time to help pass the measure. During a taped satellite broadcast preceding the election, church leaders asked for 30 members from each California congregation to donate four hours a week to the campaign. They also called on young married couples and single Mormons to use the Internet, text messaging, blogging and other forms of computer technology to help pass the initiative, saying the church had created a new Web site - - with materials they could download and post on their own social networking sites.

Church elder L. Whitney Clayton, who had been working as a liaison between the LDS leaders and the Proposition 8 campaign, said before the event that it was meant to energize Mormons for the weeks remaining before Election Day.

"It's a political campaign, and time is short and there's a lot to do."

Along with recruiting Mormons to work in California, church members from outside the state were asked to call friends and family at home in California to encourage support for the measure, according to Clayton.

Officially, the Mormon church was politically neutral and did not endorse individual candidates or political parties. The church does, however, weigh in on issues it considers morally important. The church holds traditional marriage as a sacred institution ordained by God and has actively fought efforts to legalize same-sex marriage across the United States since the 1990s. Its involvement in the California same-sex marriage debate this year began with a letter from church President Thomas S. Monson asking California Mormons to give their time and money to pass Proposition 8. Monson's letter was read repeatedly in Mormon churches, and opponents of the initiative credited LDS members with giving the Yes on 8 camp its edge in donations and volunteers.

And it's not just the Mormon Church that the gay and lesbian community is attacking, but the Catholic Church as well - something that gays and lesbians may deeply regret: Over the years, people who have thought that the Catholic Church was nothing more than a paper tiger and who attacked it thinking that the church would wither against their "onslaught" have found that they rather than the Catholic Church were the ones who were found bleeding and dying once the fight was over.


These attacks are bound to drive Mormons, Christian Evangelicals, and Catholics into an even tighter alliance than the one that has developed so far, AN ALLIANCE CAPABLE OF DEVELOPING A MASSIVE VORTEX THAT WILL SUCK INTO IT GREATER AND GREATER NUMBERS OF WHITE AMERICANS THAT AT ONE TIME WERE NOT DISPOSED TO THINK OF THEMSELVES ALONG RACIAL AND / OR RELIGIOUS LINES, making the words of a Christian school teacher in the former Yugoslavia come alive in America just as they came alive in the former Yugoslavia:

"We never, until war, thought of ourselves as Christians. We were Yugoslavs and multiculturalists. But when we began to be persecuted because we were Christian, things changed. The definition of who we are today has been determined by those who persecuted us."

NOTE: Moreover, one must remember here that it's not just the gay and lesbian community that has now been emboldened to attack the institutions of "White America," but the black community waving the banner of "Black Reparations," the Latinos waving the banner of "Free and Open Immigration," the radical feminists renewing their call for a "Equal Rights Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution, the liberal media demanding the end of "Talk-Radio" and on and on ad infinitum.


It's in this connection that we turn to examine something that occurred back in 1995 during the presidency of Bill Clinton; specifically, the attack on the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in April of 1995; we do so because there are growing numbers of scholars today who argue that the Oklahoma City bombing by white terrorists in 1995 is much more prescient insofar as what is happening in the United States now than the attack on the Twin Towers in New York by Islamic fundamentalists six years later.

Commenting on the attack in Oklahoma City, Michael Kazin, a professor of history at Georgetown University, wrote an article in 2002, entitled "White Rage" in which he delved into the cultural and racist frenzy that had motivated Timothy McVeigh to bomb the Murrah Federal Building - a tragedy that killed 168 innocent people. Kazin wrote:

"In the winter of 1992, a recently discharged white GI [i.e., Timothy McVeigh] wrote to his hometown paper in Lockport, New York. With some anguish, he listed a familiar catalog of injustices: ‘Criminals have no fear of punishment'; ‘Taxes are a joke ... More taxes are always the answer to government mismanagement'; ‘Politicians are out of control. Their yearly salaries are more than an average person will see in a lifetime'; ‘The American Dream of the middle class has all but disappeared, substituted with people struggling just to buy next week's groceries'.

"The young man had an acute sense of class grievance ... He mused, ‘Should only the rich be allowed to live long? Does that say that because a person is poor, he is a lesser human being and doesn't deserve to live as long because he doesn't wear a tie to work'?"

NOTE: One should stop and hear what McVeigh is saying here; he's expressing sentiments with which most average whites would agree today.

Kazin continued:

"Such views might have led the ex-GI into the Perot campaign [of 1992] or perhaps into the labor movement to which his father, a veteran autoworker, once belonged. But Timothy McVeigh, we know, was attracted to a wilder sphere of the discontented. In the army, he had devoured survivalist magazines like Soldier of Fortune and seemed to enjoy harassing the black soldiers in his platoon; he often called them ‘nigger' and, when promoted to sergeant, relegated them to the most menial of duties. McVeigh's journey into the heart of the violent, bigoted right had clearly begun before he wrote that letter to the editor."

Over the years, most people have been tempted to write McVeigh and Nichols off as "nuts" and "crazies," but Kazin warns against this; he writes:

"If one writes them off as "extremists" with no resonance outside a small circle of paranoid comrades, how do we understand McVeigh's letter, WHICH ECHOES SENTIMENTS HELD BY MANY IF NOT MOST [WHITE] AMERICANS?"


My heavens! And this coming from a professor at Georgetown University: That most white Americans harbor feelings similar to those harbored by McVeigh? Kazin goes on to say:

"Four decades ago, some of America's premier liberal intellectuals provided part of an answer [to the rage that was driving many white Americans] when they sought to make sense of the far right of their day. David Riesman, Seymour Martin Lipset, Richard Hofstadter, and others contributed to a provocative anthology, The Radical Right, edited by Daniel Bell. [In this regard, we URGE you to see our article, "The Jews, the Minorities, and the Multicultural Imperative."]

"Each essayist agreed that ... [people like McVeigh] made up a new American right of middle-class whites engorged with ‘populist' rage - people who ... were lashing out ... against ... [what they saw] as ‘an immense conspiracy' against [European, Christian-oriented culture] by multiculturalists, feminists, and out-of-closet homosexuals. Listen to William Pierce, author of the tract-as-novel The Turner Diaries, a favorite read on the violent right, ‘[Our enemies] can't imagine why anyone would want to go back to the bad, old days when this was a White country, and men were men, and women were women, and the freaks stayed in the closet, and everyone worked for his living'."


Kazin believes that liberals such as Kenneth S. Stern of the American Jewish Committee and Morris Dees, the co-founder of the ultra-liberal Southern Poverty Law Center, are making a big mistake in writing people like McVeigh off as merely "extremists" who are, as Dees puts it, "... deranged individuals who can be isolated from the body politic;" people who are, as Dees says,

"... racist commandos who lynch Jews and blow up FBI headquarters; rabid talk show jockeys like G. Gordon Liddy who warn against ‘brutal thugs' who dare to enforce gun-control laws; militia members who drill in camouflage uniforms and search the skies for black helicopters ..."

Kazin cites Professor Catherine McNicol Stock who teaches at Connecticut College; Stock, unlike Stern and Dees, connects McVeigh and Nichols to -

"... a BROAD and very PERSISTENT current in the U.S. past."


Obviously then, not all Americans agree with Stern and Dees - not even all liberals. Take, for example, the very liberal Anti-Defamation League (ADL) which, in the light of the Obama candidacy, recently issued a report warning that militia groups all around the country are attempting to -

"... retool, restructure and reorganize."

Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, says:

"The militias are testing the waters now ... to see whether they can begin operating again just below the radar of law enforcement and the media."

NOTE #1: The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the world's leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry.

Commenting on the popularity of the civilian militia movement to which Foxman makes reference, Paul G. Buchanan, who studies comparative strategic thought and was formerly an analyst and consultant for several U.S. security agencies, writes:

"The rise and popularity of this ‘militia movement' [i.e., the civilian militias that were extant in the 1990s] was directly linked to the right wing rhetoric aimed directly at Bill Clinton, claiming that he was planning to bring socialism to the US; and he would force the abomination of ‘gay rights' down everyone's throats, including gays in the army and equal status of gay marriage.  The attacks on President Clinton were outrageous and at the same time seemingly accepted. When a Congressman from North Carolina said that Clinton should not come to his district because he most likely wouldn't make it out alive, no action was taken and the incident was merely accepted as a ‘statement of fact'."

Buchanan continues:

"The right was predicting that with Bill Clinton the end of America as we knew it was coming, and it was the right and obligation of all people to arm themselves and form into military self defense groups "or local militias (as stated in the second amendment).  These groups popped up all over the place, and were gaining a lot of press and seemingly support, and Clinton seemed to prove them right when one of his first acts was to try to allow gays to participate in the military and his much hated (by the right) wife, Hillary ran the process that would "socialize" medicine in the US."

Buchanan goes on:

"Wrapped in the guise of the ‘love of country and the constitutions' the country collapsed into a radical right wing frenzy that ultimately led to the attack on the US federal government facility in Oklahoma City."

Buchanan says that the elevation of Obama to the presidency cannot help but re-ignite the civilian militia movement - THIS TIME IN A MUCH MORE VIRULENT FORM because "... if Clinton scared the heck out of the Right Wing, one can only imagine what Obama will do."


The ADL's report identifies several trends among civilian militia groups currently active throughout the country:

  • Keeping a low profile:  Militias have increasingly begun to connect with each other and seek recruits using lower-profile arenas of online discussion forums and mailing lists over Web sites.

  • Fear of the government: After a period of decline in the late 1990s as some members dropped out in the wake of numerous militia-related arrests, and others left the movement out of dissatisfaction when their predictions of chaos at the turn of the millennium failed to materialize, militias are being re-energized - again, especially in light of an Obama presidency.

  • The perception that "Time is Running Out":  Militia members are unifying around the idea that the country is headed toward a confrontation between its citizens and a black-dominated, multicultural government, which, in the words of one member, "is stripping us of our rights daily, and we all know what is coming and what we must do."

  • Paramilitary training:  There appears to be greater emphasis on paramilitary training in the "new" militia groups than in many of the groups that emerged in the 1990s.  And some of the groups that have survived the longest - such as the Michigan Militia and the Kentucky State Militia - are those who place an emphasis on paramilitary training.  Training with firearms and camouflage fatigues is not uncommon among "hardcore" militia units.

  • Coordination:  While much more reluctant than their 1990s counterparts to engage in high-profile public activities that might bring law enforcement or media scrutiny, some militia activists have attempted to coordinate activities with other groups, including training sessions and the formation of umbrella or coordinating groups.  Some groups have cooperated with other extremist groups, including the anti-immigration Ranch Rescue of Arizona.

  • String of arrests and convictions: There has been a little-noticed but constant level of militia-related arrests, with members jailed for shootings, illegal weapons possession and conspiracy charges.

And make no mistake about it, the renewed growth of the civilian militias is huge; indeed, one report suggests that as many as 600 new hate (militia) groups have organized in the Midwest alone - and all this doesn't count the recruiting that's been going on among young white inmates in the nation's jails and prisons. [We urge you to see our articles, "The Civilian Militias and the Mythology of the Religious Right" and "A Growing Rage in America's Heartland."]


All this is to say nothing about the emergence of armed MERCENARY groups during the presidency of George Bush II - mercenary groups that are today tightly allied to the U.S. military establishment.

Jeremy Scahill reports that there are now hundreds of such groups, among which are Blackwater, DynCorp, Triple Canopy, Erinys, ArmorGroup, etc., etc. - AND EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THESE GROUPS HAVE A FAR-RIGHT POLITICAL AGENDA VERY SIMILAR TO THE POLITICAL AGENDAS OF AMERICA'S CIVILIAN MILITIAS. [See below.]

The very real fact of the matter is, during the past eight years of the Republican monopoly on government, mercenary armies with political and cultural agendas very much like the political and cultural agendas of the civilian militias have proliferated - and so much so that during the confirmation hearings for Gen. George Casey as Army chief of staff, Senator Jim Webb declared that the country had developed "... a rent-an-army ...  with quasi-military gunfighting tasks" that are the equal of the U.S. Army itself; and that this army amounts to more than 100,000 men.


And there should be no doubt as to the political agenda of these "rental armies;" take, for example, the political ideology of BLACKWATER CORPORATION - a group headed up by Eric Prince and Dick DeVos, both of whom are tightly connected to the Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation.

A report by the Center for Public Integrity describes the Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation, incorporated in 1970, as one of the top ten conservative foundations in the United States as measured by total assets; it is the oldest and wealthiest of the DeVos family foundations. Richard DeVos, the foundation's head, is co-founder of Amway Corporation and owner of the Orlando Magic basketball team; he has served as the finance chairman of the Republican National Committee. He ranks in the Forbes 400 and is, according to Forbes, among the world's richest people, with an estimated worth of $1.7 billion in 2003.

DeVos attended the Christian Calvin College, a college associated with Dominionist Theology; he has been connected to numerous other Christian and conservative organizations, such as the Council for National Policy (CNP), the Chairman's Council of the Conservative Caucus, the Free Congress Foundation, the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy and the Rutherford Institute. [Again, please see our articles on these organizations, "The Olson Salon: A Case Study of the Machinations of the Religious Right," "John Ashcroft, Theodore Olson and the New National Security State," "The Right Wing Panics," "The Rutherford Institute and R.J. Rushdoony" and "Richard Mellon Scaife: the Evil that Money Can Do."]

NOTE: "Dominionism" is a militant post-millennial eschatology ("doctrine of end times") that pictures the seizure of earthly (temporal) power by the church 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. [Please see our article, "Dominionism: The Theology of Today's Antigovernment Movement."]


The contributions of the Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation have helped to promulgate Christian, conservative ideals. The foundation provides numerous grants to Christian organizations that work to influence public policy and public opinion, such as Focus on the Family, the Foundation for Traditional Values, and the Traditional Values Coalition. [Please see our articles, "Political Christianity," "We Are All Being Played for Suckers" and "Strange Bedfellows: the Religious Right and the Secular Right."]

In addition, the Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation also contributes to the Council for National Policy (CNP), where Richard DeVos has served on the executive committee and board of governors, and which has been described as "very dangerous and dangerously secretive" - at least in the eyes of liberals. It was founded in part by the Rev. Tim LaHaye and it strives to combat what it sees as liberal control over the country. ABC News reported that "... it provided a forum for religiously engaged conservative Christians to influence the geography of American political power." The council supports a strong national defense, Christian values, conservative morals and limited government. [Please see our articles, "The Council on National Policy," "Bad Alliances in Defense of Christian Culture: A Good Idea?" and finally, "The Cedars: The House on 24th Street."]

It is in its the connection with the CNP that one can begin to understand the ideology that undergirds the Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation and, ipso facto, the ideology that supports BLACKWATER: it's an ideology that cannot - despite the assertions of the "Conspiratorial Right" - be found in the theology of old-line evangelical Christianity, but in the gloom and shadows which spin and whirl around belief in the Illuminist Conspiracy and in the reactionary fascist, racist and anti-Semitic circles of the Political Right. [Please see our articles, "Pat Robertson, Illuminism and the New World Order" and "The Origins of the Illuminist Myth."]


The connection the Right makes between Illuminism and the Left was fueled by the linkage of many CNP members to the John Birch Society, specifically to a book the Society promoted in 1972, None Dare Call it Treason by John A. Stormer. The significance of this book lay in the fact that it presented a secularized and somewhat sanitized version of the Illuminist Conspiracy that could be accepted more readily by people who were not disposed to accept as real a conspiracy which reached back into the obscurity of the Dark Ages and encompassed Freemasonry, the Templars, the Teutonic Knights, the Hospitalers (the Knights of St. John), etc.; and one which was so openly anti-Semitic and could so easily be linked to the insanity of Hitler and Nazi Germany.

Nonetheless, Stormer's sanitized conspiracy contained all the elements dear to the heart of Illuminist enthusiasts: belief in a worldwide conspiracy (the "Communist Conspiracy") that aimed at the destruction of Western Civilization (particularly the United States), Christianity, and the "free enterprise system." Moreover, once people "bought into" Stormer's theses, it was but a short step from Stormer's sanitized None Dare Call it Treason to Robertson's "real McCoy," The New World Order and Illuminism.

Alan Crawford writes:

"The Birch influence on the political goals of the CNP is significant. Indeed, it's probably not too much to say that the links that the Society has managed to establish with New Right groups in recent years has contributed mightily to a resurgence not only of the Birch Society, but their ideas as well. The JBS [i.e., John Birch Society] was with the CNP from the beginning. Nelson Bunker Hunt, mentioned earlier as a prime mover in CNP's founding, was on the Birch Society's national council. By 1984, John Birch Society Chairman A. Clifford Barker and Executive Council Member William Cies were CNP members. Other JBS leaders also joined the Council. Five board members of Western Goals, essentially a JBS intelligence-gathering operation ... joined the CNP as well." [Please see our short article, "Nelson Bunker Hunt and the Death Squads."]


Early on we spoke of the danger of the Left - taking advantage of their win with Obama and calling it a "mandate for radical social change" (when it is in fact no such thing) - pushing the Right into a corner and enraging it to such an extent that it will emerge as a BRUTAL MONSTER capable of devouring its tormentors in a fit of towering anger - an anger that cannot be contained by the restraints of "political correctness" or even the law.

This is what happened when the Right pushed too hard against the gay and lesbian community in the late 1960s and early 1970s - provoking the development of an extremely radical faction of this community that was willing to take action "in the streets" against their tormentors. THIS IS WHERE THE DANGER OF THE NEW MILITIA MOVEMENT (AND ITS COROLLARY IN THE NOW EXTANT MERCENARY GROUPS LIKE BLACKWATER) PRESENTS ITSELF: THESE ARE EXACTLY THE GROUPS THAT ARE WILLING TO "TAKE ACTION IN THE STREETS" AGAINST THEIR TORMENTORS - and hang the legal consequences!


Much of the success of the present gay and lesbian movement resulted from the militancy that developed out of a riot at the Stonewall Inn in New York's Greenwich Village in 1969. The Stonewall Inn was one of New York's first gay bars. It had no liquor license and no running water behind the bar; used glasses were run through tubs of water and immediately reused. There were no fire exits, and the toilets overran consistently. It was the only bar for gay men in New York City where dancing was allowed.

NOTE: The bar was owned by "straights" who on the one hand condemned the "immorality" of the gay and lesbian community, but who on the other hand were more than willing to take money from them, even if it meant "promoting their lifestyles."

Police raids on Stonewall were frequent, and the time period immediately before June 28, 1969 was marked by frequent police raids. At 1:20 in the morning on Saturday, June 28, 1969, four plainclothes policemen in dark suits (members of the "vice squad"), two patrol officers in uniform, and two detectives arrived at the Stonewall Inn's double doors and announced "Police! We're taking the place!" Once inside, they called for backup from the Sixth Precinct using the bar's pay telephone. The music was turned off and the main lights were turned on. Approximately 200 people were in the bar that night. Patrons who had never experienced a police raid before were confused, but a few who realized what was happening began to run for doors and windows in the bathrooms. Police barred the doors, and confusion spread. Michael Fader, a gay journalist, remembered,

"Things happened so fast you kind of got caught not knowing. All of a sudden there were police there and we were told to all get in lines and to have our identification ready to be led out of the bar."

When the first patrol wagon arrived, the crowd-most of whom were gay-had grown to at least ten times the number of people who were arrested, and they all became very quiet. Confusion over radio communication delayed the arrival of a second wagon. A bystander shouted, "Gay power!" Someone began singing "We Shall Overcome," and the crowd reacted with "growing and hostility." An officer shoved a transvestite, who responded by hitting him on the head with her purse as the crowd began to boo. Author Edmund White, who had been passing by, recalled,

"Everyone's restless, angry and high-spirited. No one has a slogan, no one even has an attitude, but something's brewing."

The commotion attracted more people who learned what was happening. Someone in the crowd declared that the bar had been raided because "they didn't pay off the cops" (which was true), to which someone else yelled "Let's pay them off!" Coins sailed through the air towards the police as the crowd shouted "Pigs!" and "Faggot cops!"

Beer cans were thrown as a rumor spread through the crowd that patrons still inside the bar were being beaten. A scuffle broke out when a woman in handcuffs was escorted from the door of the bar to the waiting police wagon. Bystanders recalled that the woman sparked the crowd to fight when she looked at bystanders and shouted, "Why don't you guys do something?" After an officer picked her up and heaved her into the back of the wagon, the crowd became a mob and went "berserk." "It was at that moment that the scene became explosive."

Multiple accounts of the riot assert that there was no pre-existing organization or apparent cause for the demonstration; what ensued was spontaneous. Gay journalist Michael Fader explained:

"We all had a collective feeling like we'd had enough of this kind of shit. It wasn't anything tangible anybody said to anyone else, it was just kind of like everything over the years had come to a head on that one particular night in that one particular place, and it was not an organized demonstration ... Everyone in the crowd felt that we were never going to go back. It was like the last straw. It was time to reclaim something that had always been taken from us ... All kinds of people, all different reasons, but mostly it was total outrage, anger, sorrow, everything combined, and everything just kind of ran its course. It was like standing your ground for the first time and in a really strong way, and that's what caught the police by surprise. There was something in the air ... and we're going to fight for it."


"[W]e'd had enough of this kind of shit" - that's what Fader said; "It was the last straw;" "There was something in the air ... and we're going to fight for it." BUT IN SAYING THIS, FADER AND OTHERS LIKE HIM ARE FORGETTING THAT WHAT WAS TRUE FOR THE GAY AND LESBIAN COMMUNITY BACK IN 1969 IS TRUE TODAY AS THE LEFT PUSHES FOR SOCIAL AND CULTURAL CHANGES THAT ARE ANATHEMA TO THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT.

This push by the Left against the Right is, as we indicated earlier, bound to drive Mormons, Christian Evangelicals, and Catholics into an even tighter alliance than the one that has developed so far, AN ALLIANCE CAPABLE OF DEVELOPING A MASSIVE VORTEX THAT WILL SUCK INTO IT GREATER AND GREATER NUMBERS OF WHITE AMERICANS THAT AT ONE TIME WERE NOT DISPOSED TO THINK OF THEMSELVES ALONG RACIAL AND / OR RELIGIOUS LINES.  And the tip of the spear that the Religious Right is readying to hurl back at the Left are the re-emerging civilian militias and the new mercenary armies the Right has developed during the Bush II regime - militias and mercenary armies that are motivated by the ghosts and demons that swirl around the CNP and the Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation.


Evangelicals need to pause and ask themselves, however - Is this what Christianity is all about; chasing the ghosts and demons that haunt the CNP? The problem, of course, is that these demons have a way of turning on those who "fool around with them." (cf. Mark 9:29)

WE URGE YOU TO ARM YOURSELVES AGAINST THE TEMPTATION TO SUCCUMB TO THE RAGE PEDDLED BY GROUPS LIKE THE CNP AND THEIR MINIONS IN TODAY'S APOSTATE CHUCH -  the church of Paul Crouch, Jack Hayford, 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, 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. [Please see our article, "Luciferic Christianity."]

Millions and millions of "good," ordinary German Christians thought they would never succumb to the seduction of Hitlerism; but - in the end - they did! The power of that seduction is made apparent by a remark made by, of all people, an American Jew who - while visiting Germany in 1934 - attended out of curiosity a Hitler rally in Nuremberg in 1936:

"I was so taken away with the glorious spectacle that I found myself wishing that I could plunge into the euphoric mass and become one with it; at that moment, I would have gladly shed my Jewish identity and become a white, blond Aryan."

God bless you all!

S.R. Shearer
Antipas Ministries

Read The Follow-On Article


  1. Those of you who continue to reside WITHIN the borders of the United States and who want to involve themselves in ALIYA -


  2. Brothers and sisters - all those who live OUTSIDE the borders of the United States - God is raising up a TESTIMONY to His holy Name in these "last days." If you want to be a part of this great work, please -


    NOTE: Please take the time to read the attached article; then, if you wish, sign up at the place designated at the end of the article.

  3. In addition, we continue to need your financial help. We will, of course,  continue on whether we receive help or not, but if you can help and take some of the pressure off of us, please -


    Remember the Word of God:


  4. Finally, if you have not as yet ordered your FREE DVD, "Greed Is Good," we encourage you to do so now -



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