RELIGION IN POLITICS
Permission to make copies is hereby granted.[www.isrp.org]

October 31, 2001

PREFACE

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)

[We urge you to read Dene McGriff's article on the PROMISE KEEPERS in conjunction with this article.]

INTRODUCTION

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 multicultu!
ralists.

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 W!
AY 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.
The Image of the Beast
(Part II)

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.]

FINALLY, AND MOST SHOCKINGLY, WE WILL EXPOSE THE CONNECTION OF THE PROMISE KEEPERS MEN'S MOVEMENT IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS COMING "MESSIAH-KING" - A CONNECTION THAT WE DID NOT MAKE, BUT ONE WHICH A WELL-KNOWN SECULAR AUTHOR, GAIL SHEEHY, MADE. It seems that, once again -

"... 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 ANTI-DEMOCRATIC (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 s!
ubstantive 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.

BUT THERE ARE OTHER AREAS IN OUR CULTURE WHERE SUCH AN OPEN SHOW OF ARDOR IS NOT NECESSARY; INDEED, PLACES WHERE SUCH A PRETENSE OF DEVOTION TO THE CONCEPTS OF DEMOCRACY WOULD BE ENTIRELY OUT OF PLACE AND EVEN INAPPROPRIATE. TWO PARTICULAR AREAS SPRING IMMEDIATELY TO MIND: (1) BUSINESS AND (2) RELIGION.

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."

BUSINESS CONTROL OF THE MEDIA; AND, IPSO FACTO, PROPAGANDA IN THIS COUNTRY

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 infi!
nitum.

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!

AUTOCRATIC FORMS OF GOVERNMENT WITHIN THE CHURCH

PREPARE THE WAY FOR ANTICHRIST

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 po!
pulation. 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.

GATHERING ANTI-DEMOCRATIC FORCES AROUND THE BUSH PRESIDENCY

IN ORDER TO PROMOTE GLOBALISM

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 nightmare 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.

CENTRAL TO THIS ENORMOUS EFFORT IS THE WILLINGNESS OF THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY (ESPECIALLY THE EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY) TO JETTISON FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES THE INSTITUTIONS OF DEMOCRACY IN FAVOR OF A KIND OF MESSIANIC LEADERSHIP THAT CLOAKS ITSELF IN THE FLAG.

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."

BUSH AND THE PROMISE KEEPERS: RELIGIOUS RHETORIC

TURNED INTO POLITICAL RHETORIC

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. [More about this later.]

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-typ!
e" 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:

Worship is more than singing Christian songs. Worship involves THE INVITATION FOR THE LORD OF HOSTS TO OVERCOME THE POWERS OF EVIL ON THE EARTH. AT THE INVITATION OF THE CHURCH, THE LORD IS BINDING THE FORCES OF DARKNESS AND ALLOWING THE LOST TO BE RECEPTIVE TO THE GOSPEL. PEOPLE THEN RECEIVE THE LORD IN GREAT NUMBERS. AS A RESULT OF GOD'S PRESENCE IN THE LIVES OF MANY PEOPLE IN A CITY, LAWS IN THAT CITY CHANGE. OCCULT ACTIVITY, IMMORAL BUSINESSES, AND CRIME ARE DRASTICALLY REDUCED. THE CITY BEGINS TO TRANSFORM."

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