FRONTS FOR INTERNATIONAL  BANKING CARTEL government by secret societies,

or by a group of initiates who operate from behind the scenes. 

It is an analogue of theocracy, or rule by a priesthood.

~ Marquis Alexandre Saint-Yves dAlveydre







“Freedom of conscience has been declared everywhere, so that now only years divide us from the moment of the complete wrecking of that Christian religion.” (Protocol 17.2)











Dominion Theology appears to have originated in America with an organization called “Mobilization for Spiritual Ideals.”  Started in the 1930s by Rev. James Fifield, the ‘Spiritual Mobilization’ company was a reaction to the liberal Social Gospel and FDR’s New Deal socialism, which was a reaction to the unbridled capitalism of the Great Depression era. All were created by the well-entrenched Jewish oligarchy which continues to generate endless crises and solutions to advance their cause, as noted by Franklin Sanders, “If a crisis emerges, the Insiders will have precipitated it themselves, so that they can impose their already-prepared solution’.” (“The Militias, Prudence & Almighty God”) 


John D. Rockefeller was the primary financier of the ‘Social Gospel through the doctrinally liberal Federal Council of Churches which he founded in 1908. John D. also founded and funded, in 1890, the University of Chicago where Rev. Fifield received his Master’s degree. Fifield was born in Chicago in 1899, received a Master of Arts degree from the University of Chicago in 1922 and a Bachelor of Divinity from Chicago Theological Seminary in 1924. Chicago Theological Seminary is associated with and directly adjacent to the campus of the University of Chicago.


John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Co. was financed by Rothschild and financially managed behind the scenes by Rothschild’s U.S. agent, Jacob Schiff.


“However much of the Rockefeller wealth may be attributed to old John D.s rapacity and ruthlessness, its origins are indubitably based in his initial financing from the National City Bank of Cleveland, which was identified in Congressional reports as one of the three Rothschild banks in the United States and by his later acceptance of the guidance of Jacob Schiff of Kuhn, Loeb & Company, who had been born in the Rothschild house in Frankfort and was now the principal Rothschild representative (but unknown as such to the public) in the United States... Truth magazine, December 16, 1912,...pointed out that ‘Mr. Schiff is head of the great private banking house of Kuhn, Loeb & Company, which represents the Rothschild interests on this side of the Atlantic. He is described as a financial strategist and has been for years the financial minister of the great impersonal power known as Standard Oil. Note that this editor did not even mention the name of Rockefeller.” (Eustace Mullins, Murder by Injection, Chap. 10)


Mobilization for Spiritual Ideals was an outgrowth of Moral Re-Armament, a movement launched in 1938 by Lutheran minister, Frank Buchman, as the American branch of the Oxford Group, also founded by Buchman in the 1920s at Oxford University. Buchman thoroughly embraced fascism. “In a 1936 radio address, he had said, ‘I thank heaven for a man like Adolf Hitler who built a front line of defense against the anti-Christ of Communism. In 1955 a who’s who of conservative Senate and House members joined GOP senator Arthur Watkins of Utah in praising Moral Re-Armament for ‘doing a great deal of good in the world.” (Allan J. Lichtman, White Protestant Nation: The Rise of the American Conservative Movement, p. 199)


Among the advocates of Moral Re-Armament were many prominent political and social leaders in Europe and America. President Harry S. Truman was an enthusiastic partisan of Frank Buchman. Konrad Adenauer, who was Chancellor of Germany, and Robert Schuman, who was twice the Prime Minister of France and a founder of the European Union, participated in MRA meetings in Caux, Switzerland. In 1949, the World Assembly for Moral Re-Armament was attended by delegates from 42 countries. Rev. James Fifield’s Spiritual Mobilization was financed and staffed by the top management of many leading corporations.


“Rev. James W. Fifield was minister of First Congregational Church of Los Angeles, and for a time the U.S. leader of Moral Re-Armament... In 1940, he established a company to promote his views, called Spiritual Mobilization. By 1948, it had a new board of directors composed of businessmen, and with the financial support of many of the country’s top corporations it published a monthly journal which was sent to 22,000 clergymen across the country, with the message that only a free-market economy was consistent with Christian principles.” (SourceWatch


In the following excepts from various sources, it will be seen that the same wealthy industrialists and banking houses which were responsible for the Great Depression and FDR’s New Deal socialism, also funded Rev. James Fifield’s Mobilization for Spiritual Ideals. Also, that the Spiritual Mobilization organization was directed and funded by leading corporate executives, whose publication featured contributors from the Austrian School. These fascist economists developed the ideological construct for the Conservative Revolution, the Libertarian Party, Constitution Party and all of the right-wing Dominionist causes, movements, organizations, consortiums such as the Council for National Policy, think tanks, militias, etc. which front for the Learned Elders of Sion.


The Libertarian Theocrats


“In 1935, Rev. James Fifield of Chicago formed Mobilization for Spiritual Ideals to address these concerns. Popularly known as Spiritual Mobilization, Fifield’s operation earned the fiscal support of such right-wing philanthropists as J. Howard Pew of Sun Oil, Jasper Crane of DuPont, and B.E. Hutchinson of Chrysler. Facing the daunting task of resisting nearly five decades of entrenched liberal Protestant teaching and the harsh reality of the Depression, Fifield recruited preachers and laymen eager to resist the massive redistribution of wealth envisioned by President Roosevelt. His appeal was simplistic but effective. American clergymen needed to start preaching the Eighth Commandment: ‘Thou shalt not steal.’ In this, the shortest commandment, Fifield and his followers believed they had found the biblical basis for private property and a limit to the government’s ability to redistribute wealth, tax, and otherwise impede commerce...

“In order to undermine government-sponsored economic redistribution, the ministers and laymen Fifield hired focused on the spiritual causes of poverty rather than the social concerns of the Social Gospelers. The New Deal and the conflicts with the Nazis and Soviets were manifestations of humankind’s rejection of God’s divinity for that of a centralized bureaucracy.

“An all-powerful bureaucracy, they warned, usurped the ‘Christian principle of love’ with the ‘collectivist principle of compulsion.’...

“Beginning in 1949, the Christ-centered free market ideals of Spiritual Mobilization reached nearly fifty thousand pastors and ministers via the organization’s publication, Faith and Freedom. With the rhetorical flare of such libertarian luminaries as the Congregationalist minister Edmund A. Opitz, the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, and the anarchist Murray Rothbard, Faith and Freedom moved many clergymen to embrace its anti-tax, non-interventionist, anti-statist economic model...

“By the mid-1950s, prominent secular libertarian organizations like the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) and the Intercollegiate Society of Individualists (ISI) began to supplant Spiritual Mobilization’s influence in libertarian circles. In fact, many of Faith and Freedom’s regular contributors like Opitz and Rothbard left Spiritual Mobilization and began writing for FEE’s publication, The Freeman. Further, Ayn Rand’s atheistic Objectivism pulled many libertarians away from the Christian ideals of Spiritual Mobilization...


Reinhold Niebuhr was a Professor of Practical Theology at the Rockefeller-funded Union Theological Seminary in New York.  Although he was theologically liberal, Niebuhr’s observations on Spiritual Mobilization’s version of Christianity in which self-interest and free market capitalism were articles of religious faith are valid and worth pondering.  With Protestantism’s redefinition of Christianity as free market capitalism, it’s not surprising that Ayn Rand’s atheism became popular––and Mobilization for Spiritual Ideals shelved the spiritual ideals,” mobilizing for rationalism and self-interest instead.


“The movement entitled ‘Spiritual Mobilization,’ conducted by Dr. James Fifield of Los Angeles, is one of the worst forms of religious rationalization of a class viewpoint that we have had in American history. Dr. Fifield  declares that the preservation of the ‘free enterprise system’ is a matter of religious concern because free enterprise is so intimately related to ‘freedom of worship’ in the whole democratic system that it becomes a religious duty to defend the one for the sake of preserving the other.

“He claims that his movement is purely religious and not political because he never explicitly identifies the ‘pagan statism’ which he regards as the enemy of religious freedom. But it is quite apparent that what he is after is the general tendency toward political control of economic process which is associated in America with the ‘New Deal.’ His millionaire supporters are under no illusion about his identification. They give him all the money he needs to make his supposedly religious, but actually political, attack upon their foes.

“Almost every aspect of Dr. Fifield ’s propaganda is dishonest. It is dishonest to identify a state that seeks for a larger measure of control of economic life with a state that makes itself God... The suggestion that only an archaic laissez-faire economics can save us from nazi totalitarianism introduces a stupid and dishonest fear into nice calculations that modern democracy must make upon this vexing subject.

“While Dr. Fifield  falsely accuses the proponents of a managed economy of identifying the state with God, he actually engages in an unscrupulous identification of a particular class prejudice with the divine. The exaggerated devotion to ‘free enterprise’ is an aberration of the wealthy classes of this country and hides and expresses their fears of social change. Even without the benefit of clergy, this fear is more exaggerated in our nation than in any other. Fifield  strengthens this fear by religious sanction.

“The final test of any true prophet is whether he has a word of God spoken against his group and not merely for it. By that test Dr. Fifield  is a false prophet. He has not pointed out to his wealthy admirers that while they speak glibly of the value of freedom in preference to the value of security, they do nothing to establish the security of the masses and little to give social justification to the freedom of their power. There is no woe in Dr. Fifield ’s gospel upon ‘the rulers of Israel’ and no judgment upon the financial oligarchy of this nation. He does not help the wealthy to realize that the demand for stronger state control upon business springs from the increased power of industry and finance in the community and from the peril to justice that resides in this power.

“Even when no religious sanctities are appealed to, it is dishonest to scare people with the perils of state power if these are not considered in comparison with the perils of irresponsible economic power.

“The whole campaign of  the ‘free enterprise’ proponents dishonestly obscures the real issues involved in the relation between political and economic power. But the religious campaign in support of free enterprise is particularly dishonest, precisely because it seeks to give an ultimate religious sanction to a particular social movement without offering a word of criticism from the religious perspective upon the perils of that movement.

“Dr. Fifield  claims to represent 52 per cent of American Protestant ministers. It is to be hoped that this is a falsehood. If over half of our Protestant clergy are either the knowing or the unwitting accomplices of a campaign to further the interests of the plutocratic class of the nation, the state of Protestantism in our society is even worse than we had assumed it to be.” (Love and Justice, Reinhold Niebuhr, pp. 113-115)




Lest Christians discover that John D. Rockefeller, i.e. Rothschild, was financing both Protestant socialism and it’s rival ideology,  fascism, it was necessary to find another conduit through whom to fund the Libertarian movement in its early stages.  William Volker (1959-1947) was a Jewish German immigrant who became a successful home furnishings entrepreneur in Chicago. At the age of 52, Volker suddenly announced his decision to give $10 million to worthy causes. Much of his fortune would be given anonymously, probably to avoid pubic scrutiny. The Mont Pelerin Society and its Austrian School and Chicago School luminaries Friedrich von Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Milton Friedman, Murray Rothbard, Aaron Director and even the founder of Christian Reconstructionism, Rousas J. Rushdoony were initially sponsored by the William Volker Fund.


William Volker Fund


“The William Volker Fund, which was active from 1932 to 1965, was a charitable foundation established to promote and disseminate ideas on free-market economics. During most of this period, the William Volker Fund was the only libertarian organization with significant amounts of money at its disposal; and, for this reason, it played a key role in developing the modern libertarian movement in the United States.

The Fund was instrumental in bringing Friedrich Hayek to the University of Chicago. It also helped support many other classical liberal scholars who at the time could not obtain positions in American universities, such as Ludwig von Mises and Aaron Director. Through a front organization, the National Book Foundation, the Volker Fund gave away libertarian books, by authors such as Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, to college libraries.

“The Fund helped the then small minority of Old Right scholars to meet, discuss, and exchange ideas. Milton Friedman’s Capitalism and Freedom, Bruno Leoni’s Freedom and the Law, and Hayek’s Constitution of Liberty were all influenced by the ideas discussed at such meetings. William Volker also put up the funds that enabled the North Americans to have such a strong presence at the first Mont Pelerin Society meeting in 1947. Under the directorship of ‘master recruiter’ F. A. Harper, the fund also directed itself towards the systematic recruitment of young libertarian scholars. Although Harper was fired by Luhnow in 1962, he continued this work at the Institute for Humane Studies. Harper was replaced by Ivan Bierly, an ex-Foundation for Economic Education senior staffer, who in turn hired Rousas John Rushdoony. A young Murray Rothbard began working for the Volker Fund in 1951 and wrote book reviews for the Fund until 1962. Rose Wilder Lane also contributed book reviews. Staffers included Herb Cornuelle and Leonard Liggio.”


Aaron Director was a famous professor at the University of Chicago Law School who played a central role in the development of the Chicago school of economics with his brother-in-law, Milton Friedman, the leader of the “Chicago School.” (See: “Notable Historical Jewish Libertarians”)  The William Volker Fund also launched a number of Libertarian think tanks, foremost among them the “Hoover Institution for War, Revolution and Peace.”


“In addition to its own activities, the Volker Fund helped fund the formation of various complementary institutions, including the Intercollegiate Society of Individualists (ISI), which was later renamed Intercollegiate Studies Institute; the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE); the Earhart Foundation; and the Relm Foundation. According to observers such as John Blundell of the Mont Pelerin Society, the William Volker Fund’s strategic successor on its expiration was the F.A. Harper’s Institute for Humane Studies. In 1963, most the Volker Fund’s activities were transferred to a new Center for American Studies (CAS), which proved short-lived and closed late in 1964. A decade later, the Volker Fund’s remaining money, amounting to about seven million dollars, went to the Hoover Institution. The Fund’s files have disappeared.” (William Volker Fund)


The official story is that Hoover Institution was founded by Herbert Hoover with $50K, although $7 million in funding would later arrive from the Volker Fund. What is also usually not mentioned is that (1) the Hoover Institution was heavily involved with the Eugenics societies of that day and (2) Herbert Hoover’s implementation of free market, laissez faire ‘do nothing’ economics prolonged the misery of the Great Depression. 


“In 1919 the Hoover Institution was founded at Stanford University, Palo Alto, California with a donation of $50,000 from Herbert Hoover… Herbert Hoover founded the Hoover Institution at the suggestion of three men, Andrew Dickson White, (S&B 1853), Daniel Coit Gilman, (S&B 1852) and Ray Lyman Wilbur, president of Stanford… In 1921 the Second International Congress of Eugenics is held in New York City. The sponsoring committee includes Herbert Hoover and the presidents of Clark University, Smith College and the Carnegie Institute of Washington (Rockefeller)…  Among the notables in attendance were future President Herbert Hoover, Alexander Graham Bell, (the Congress’s honorary president), conservationist and future Governor of Pennsylvania, Gifford Pinchot, (S&B 1889) and Leonard Darwin, son of Charles Darwin.” (“The History of Health”)

The Great Depression

“In the United States, the deliberate British default of September 1931 led, given the do-nothing Hoover Administration policies, directly to the banking crisis of 1932-33, which closed down or severely restricted virtually every bank in the country by the morning of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s inauguration... U.S. President Herbert Hoover,...for the sake of absurd free-market, laissez-faire ideology, allowed his country to drift into the abyss. As we will see, Hoover had everything he needed to base his 1932 campaign for re-election on blaming the Federal Reserve, especially its New York branch, for the 1929 calamity. Hoover could have assailed the British for their September 1931 stab in the back. Hoover would have been doing the country a permanent service... But Hoover was not capable of seriously attacking the New York Fed and its master, Lord Montagu Norman.” 

Eustace Mullins made the astute observation that the vast multitude of foundations which litter the American landscape are run by foreigners. They are, in fact, anti-American intelligence organizations which perpetuate the Hegelian dialectic – controlled conflict between ‘thesis’ and ‘antithesis’ until the ever increasing level of hostility brings about the desired ‘synthesis.’


“The World Order rules through a simple technique: Divide and Conquer (divide et impera). Every natural or unnatural division among people, every occasion for hatred or greed, is exploited and exacerbated to the limit. The polarization of racial and ethnic groups in the U.S. is accelerated by a flood of government decrees, originating in foundation ‘studies’, which are designed solely to set American against American. Only in this way can the World Order maintain its iron grip on the daily lives of the people...

“The U.S. Congress has specifically chartered many parasitic functions in the philanthropic foundations. These groups now dominate educational and governmental institutions, laying down financial and social goals which are designed solely to maintain the hegemony of parasitism through its World Order. The American foundations are not even run by Americans; their policies are formulated in London by the financiers and transmitted to this country through the British Army Bureau of Psychological Warfare front Tavistock Institute. This is a typical disguised parasitic operation.” (The World Order, Eustace Mullins)


Under the management of William Volker’s nephew, Harold Luhnow, the Volker Fund-sponsored Libertarian scholars began “multiplying like rabbits,” according to the authors of “Mr. Anonymous and the Not So Spontaneous Birth of the Libertarian ‘Movement’.” The original Volker-funded Libertarian think tank was the Foundation for Economic Freedom (FEE) which set up the Mont Pelerin Society.


“In support of the imported scholars and the new ideology, the Volker Fund also pioneered a process which would become the hallmark of the ‘Libertarian Movement’. The Fund started to spin-off organizations by the boatload, each intended, not just to serve specific purposes but to give the appearance of many ‘independent’ efforts spawned by a ‘mass’ appeal. The list of ‘begats’ is too numerous to chronicle but the first set are illuminating.

“The Foundation for Economic Education was spun out in 1946, under the leadership of Leonard Read, a leading figure in the Chambers of Commerce. The grand-daddy of all libertarian ‘think-tanks’, the FEE initiated the original Mont Pelerin Society meetings. Its own publication, The Freeman, became the founding journal of ‘Libertarianism’. The rent was paid by Volker.” (“Mr. Anonymous”)


Harold Luhnow (b. 1895, Chicago) was largely responsible for the libertarian direction taken by the influential William Volker Fund during the period 1944 - 1965...

“In particular, Luhnow supported academics of the Austrian school. He brought Hayek to the University of Chicago; paid Ludwig von Mises’ salary at New York University; funded lectures that Milton and Rose Friedman turned into Capitalism and Freedom; and he approved the grant that enabled Murray N. Rothbard to write ‘Man, Economy and State’.” (SourceWatch)




Rousas J. Rushdoony was a libertarian scholar recruited by the second director of the Volker Fund, Ivan Bierly, who had been on the senior staff of the Foundation for Economic Freedom. Rousas Rushdoony is known as the “father of Christian Reconstructionism” and he also inspired the homeschool movement whose materials are today used by many Christian families.  Perhaps Rushdoony’s greatest influence has been to launch a movement which has transitioned many Christians away from the sound doctrine of the New Testament into the false doctrines of John Calvin.

“Rousas John Rushdoony (25 April 1916–8 February 2001) was a Calvinist philosopher, historian, and theologian and is widely credited as the father of Christian Reconstructionism and an inspiration for the modern Christian homeschool movement. His prolific writings have exerted considerable influence on the Christian right.

“Rushdoony began his career as a writer in 1958, the same year he left the PCUSA and joined the more conservative Orthodox Presbyterian Church. He began popularizing, albeit densely, the works of Calvinist philosophers Cornelius Van Til and Herman Dooyeweerd into a short survey of contemporary humanism called By What Standard?. Arguing for a Calvinist system of thought, Rushdoony dealt with subjects as broad as epistemology and cognitive metaphysics and as narrow as the psychology of religion and predestination. He wrote a book, The One And The Many: Studies in the Philosophy of Order and Ultimacy, using Van Tillian Presuppositional philosophy to critique various aspects of secular humanism.

Rushdoony’s most important area of writing, however, was law and politics, as expressed in his small book of popular essays Law & Liberty and discussed in much greater detail in his three volume, 1894-page magnum opus, The Institutes of Biblical Law. With a title modeled after Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, Rushdoony’s Institutes was arguably his most influential work. In the book, he proposed that Old Testament law should be applied to modern society and that there should be a Christian theonomy, a concept developed in his colleague Greg Bahnsen’s controversial tome Theonomy and Christian Ethics, which Rushdoony heartily endorsed. In the Institutes, Rushdoony supported the reinstatement of the Mosaic law’s penal sanctions. Under such a system, the list of civil crimes which carried a death sentence would include homosexuality, adultery, incest, lying about one’s virginity, bestiality, witchcraft, idolatry or apostasy, public blasphemy, false prophesying, kidnapping, rape, and bearing false witness in a capital case. Although supporting the separation of church and state at the national level, Rushdoony understood both institutions as under the rule of God, and thus he conceived secularism as posing endless false antitheses, which his massive work addresses in considerable detail. In short, he sought to cast a vision for the reconstruction of society based on Christian principles...

“Rushdoony was the founder in 1965 of the Chalcedon Foundation and the editor of its monthly magazine, the Chalcedon Report. He also published the Journal of Christian Reconstruction and was an early board member of the Rutherford Institute, founded in 1982 by John Whitehead. He later received an honorary Doctorate from Valley Christian University for his book, The Philosophy of the Christian Curriculum.” (“Rousas John Rushdoony”)


Rushdoony loathed democratic forms of government and advocated a pseudo-Christian theocracy ruled by a “spiritual aristocracy.”  Christian Reconstructionism is actually a name for Synarchy, the authoritarian Judeo-Christian theocracy ruled by a priest-king which was advocated in the 19th century by Saint-Yves d’Alveydre of the Martinist Order, a Masonic front for the Prieuré de Sion.


“[Rushdoony’s Institutes of Biblical Law] was also critical of democracy. He wrote that ‘the heresy of democracy has since then worked havoc in church and state ... Christianity and democracy are inevitably enemies.’ He elsewhere said that ‘Christianity is completely and radically anti-democratic; it is committed to spiritual aristocracy,’ and characterized democracy as ‘the great love of the failures and cowards of life.’

“Rushdoony’s work has been used by Dominion Theology advocates who attempt to implement a Christian theocracy, a government subject to Biblical law, especially the Torah, in the United States. Authority, behavioural boundaries, economics, penology and the like would all be governed by biblical principles in Rushdoony’s vision, but he also proposed a wide system of freedom, especially in the economic sphere, and claimed Ludwig von Mises as an intellectual mentor; he called himself a Christian libertarian.” (“Rousas John Rushdoony”)


Christian Reconstruction and Synarchy are, in fact, throwbacks to the ancient pagan theocratic nations, Israel being no exception, in ancient times or in modern Israel. 


“‘Theocracy, the direct rule of a nation by God through divinely selected spokesmen, has many exemplars in the modern world. Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Iraq are nations with obvious theocratic tendencies. Israel’s political parties exhibit growing theocratic patterns. In the United States, the Christian Reconstruction movement proposes the purest form of theocracy. Reconstructionism…believes that the law given for the political and legal ordering of ancient Israel is intended for all people at all times; therefore American is duty bound to install a political system based entirely on biblical law.’

“Reconstructionist theologian David Barton offered this definition: ‘The Christian goal for the world is the universal development of Biblical theocratic republics, in which every area of life is redeemed and placed under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the rule of God’s law.’”

“Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah, And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD. And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee. Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them. And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king. And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants. And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day. Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us; That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.” (1 Sam. 5-20)


Rev. R. J. Rushdoony served on the Council for National Policy Board of Governors for an unknown period of time, since the CNP membership directory has been not disclosed for many years. (See: CNP Database) The Council for National Policy is a 500+ pseudo-Conservative consortium founded by members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and comprised of Evangelical ministers and parachurch leaders, Freemasons, neo-Fascists, wealthy philanthropists, corporate executives, and globalists.


Rushdoony shares common ground with other CNP members because the belief system he promotes, Calvinism, falsely teaches a predestined elite, rule by priests-kings, and advocates an Old Testament Theocratic style government. The system of theocratic government advocated by Rousas Rushdoony is based on the theocracy which Calvin established in Geneva, Switzerland. Calvin ruled Geneva without mercy, executing heretics and those who broke the Old Testament Law. Calvinism is also a front for the Synarchy advocated by Saint-Yves dAlveydre and the Prieuré de Sion.


“However, the concept that everyone has a preordained place and role means that some people are naturally intended to lead: in other words, Saint-Yves advocated government by a predestined elite. And although much of his work is about the practicality of applying synarchy to the government of society, at its core it is an essentially spiritual or mystical philosophy. The elite is spiritually attuned to the universal laws—effectively a priesthood. Synarchy is therefore a form of theocracy, rule by priests or priest-kings.

“Synarchy even suggests that this enlightened elite is in direct contact with, and receives its instructions from, the spiritual intelligences that rule the universe—rather like the theocratic pharaohs of ancient Egypt, who were both secular rulers and intermediaries between the gods and the people. Saint-Yves himself believed he was in contact with invisible forces. But as Andre Ulmann and Henri Azeau point out in their 1968 Synarchy and Power (Synarchie et pouvoir), ultimately such elites are always self-selected.” (The Sion Revelation, p. 338-339)


“Synarchy amounts to government by secret societies, with members holding positions of open or covert influence in government, economy and religion. The idea is generally totalitarian. Theocracy, meaning rule by priesthood, is not far from synarchy.” (Synarchy)


Evidence that Calvin was Jewish was obtained from the proceedings of the B’nai B’rith Convention in Paris in 1936.


“Once the revolution had been decided upon, the Jewish plotters introduced Calvinism into England to split Church and State, and divide the people. Contrary to general belief, Calvinism is of Jewish origin. It was deliberately conceived to split the adherents of the Christian religions and divide the people. Calvin’s real name was Cohen! When he went from Geneva to France to start preaching his doctrine he became known as Cauin. Then in England it became Calvin. History proves that there is hardly a revolutionary plot that wasn’t hatched in Switzerland; there is hardly a Jewish revolutionary leader who hasn’t changed his name.

“At B’nai B’rith celebrations held in Paris, France, in 1936 Cohen, Cauvin, or Calvin, whatever his name may have been, was enthusiastically acclaimed to have been of Jewish descent (The Catholic Gazette, February, 1936)...

“‘We are the Fathers of all Revolutions, even of those which sometimes happen to turn against us. We are the supreme Masters of Peace and War. We can boast of being the Creators of the Reformation! Calvin was one of our children; he was of Jewish descent, and was entrusted by Jewish authority and encouraged with Jewish finance to draft his scheme in the reformation (which was to convince Christians it was alright to charge usury and other damnable heresies which are in violation of God’s Laws).”


Christian Reconstructionists adhere tenaciously to the tenets of Calvinism or Reformed theology, which maintains that all of the end-time Bible prophecies were fulfilled by 70 A.D., with the destruction of Jerusalem. Therefore, it only remains for the Christian Church to set up the Kingdom of God on earth before the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. A description of Christian Reconstructionism follows:


Christian Reconstructionism


Christian Reconstructionism is a religious and theological movement within Protestant Christianity that calls for Christians to put their faith into action in all areas of life. The beliefs characteristic of Christian Reconstructionism include:


1. Calvinism, for its description individual spiritual regeneration by the Holy Spirit that is required to change people on a personal level before any positive cultural changes can occur.


2. Theonomy applying the general principles of Old Testament and New Testament Law to the corresponding family, church and civil governments (compare with theocracy); opposed to church-state separation of any kind, believing the state is under God and is therefore commanded to enforce God’s Law, although some advocate a separation of Church and State while agreeing with the other four tenets .


3. Postmillennialism, the Christian eschatological belief that God’s kingdom began at the first coming of Jesus Christ, and will advance progressively throughout history until it fills the whole earth through conversion to the Christian faith and worldview.


4. The presuppositional apologetics of Cornelius Van Til which holds there is no neutrality between believers and nonbelievers, that the Bible reveals a self-authenticating worldview and system of truth, and that non-Christian, non-Reformed belief systems self-destruct when they become more consistent with their presuppositions, (Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic, pp. 145–6, 97, 315–6) or even the presuppositionalist approach of Gordon Clark, and


5. Decentralized political order resulting in minimal state power and laissez-faire economics.

The movement, in its modern form, was founded in the United States of America, popularized by Rousas John (R. J.) Rushdoony in his work The Institutes of Biblical Law (published in 1973), though to an extent it had its beginnings in the colonial governments of early New England (especially that of the Massachusetts Bay colony). Other past and present Reconstructionist leaders include Gary North (Rushdoony’s son-in-law), Howard Ahmanson, Jr., Greg Bahnsen, David Chilton, Gary DeMar, Kenneth Gentry, and Andrew Sandlin.

The founders of the movement have all been Calvinists, and they believe that their view of the law is a faithful extension of the Reformed Christian view of the continuing validity of Biblical Law in a modern context.

Theocracy compared to neofascism


Some critics categorize the Christian Reconstructionist movement as something philosophically akin to totalitarianism or theocratic neofascism. For example, Karen Armstrong sees a potential for fascism in Christian Reconstructionism, and notes that the system of dominion envisaged by Christian Reconstructionist theologians R. J. Rushdoony and Gary North “is totalitarian. There is no room for any other view or policy, no democratic tolerance for rival parties, no individual freedom,” (Armstrong, Battle for God, pp. 361–362). Berlet and Lyons have written that the movement is a “new form of clerical fascist politics,” (Right-Wing Populism in America, p. 249).


The spiritual father of the Christian Reconstructionists was Protestant Reformer John Calvin, who aspired to set up the “Kingdom of God” in Geneva, Switzerland during the Protestant Reformation. This utopian enterprise demanded the eradication of heresies by executing heretics, the ‘most wanted’ being Michael Servetus who wrote and taught against the deity of Jesus Christ and the Trinity. Louis Israel Newman documented, in Jewish Influence on Christian Reform Movements, that Calvin’s theocracy was not based on Old Testament Law.


“The burning of Servetus produced a great revulsion of feeling in Geneva... [Calvin’s] Declaration pour maintenir la vraye Foye, published in Latin under the title: Defensio Orthodoxae Fidei de Sacra Trinitate contra errores Michaelis Serveti seeks to champion Calvin’s own view of the Trinity, and particularly to prove the validity of capital punishment of heretics and the justice of the judgment against Servetus. This work affords an insight into the method by which Old Testament texts were drafted in support of doctrines oftentimes contrary thereto in spirit and purpose... Religious persecution, it has been long thought, found sanction and justification in the commands of the Mosaic Law. Christian historians are quick to point out that punishment of heterodoxy by death is ordered by many Old Testament passages...

“Melanchthon believed that the ‘Mosaic law against idolatry and blasphemy was binding upon Christian states and was applicable to heresies as well.’ Thus Calvin’s plea that the right and duty of Christian magistrates is to punish heresy by death stands or falls with his theocratic system, and his belief in the binding authority of the Pentateuchal Code.  He draws his arguments chiefly from the Jewish laws against idolatry and blasphemy, and from the examples of pious kings of Israel. He indignantly repels Servetus’ charge that because he preserved intact the severity of the Law, he was a ‘Jew,’ and seeks proof in defense of his cause from Jeremiah...Psalms 18:45; 2:9; ... Isaiah 49:23... Daniel 3:29;... Deuteronomy 13:6...;  13:12...; Exodus 32:27..., and several selections from the New Testament: Corinthians... John... Acts... Timothy, Matthew, and other books thereof, numbering in total more than those selected from the Old Testament...” (Jewish Influence on Christian Reform Movements, New York, 1925, pp. 604-606)


That Calvin’s theocratic model of government was based on Old Covenant Law is disingenuous. Mosaic Law does not command the execution of heretics or the Israelites would have been required to conduct mass executions of the Gentiles. Even if Calvin’s theocracy had been modeled after the Old Covenant, which it was not, a theocratic government based on the Mosaic Law finds no support in the New Testament and is antithetical to the New Covenant in Christ’s blood.


“Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God... But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.” (Romans 7:4,6)

“For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God...  By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.” (Hebrews 7:18,19, 22)


Rousas Rushdoony “Christian Reconstructionism” implied the “Reconstruction of Christianity.”  To ‘reconstruct’ means “To construct again; rebuild. To assemble or build again mentally; re-create... To cause to adopt a new attitude or outlook...” (  Reconstruction necessarily involves the destruction of that which is to be rebuilt.  The purported mission of Christian Reconstructionism is to destroy the old social order and reconstruct society. The de facto outcome of this movement will be to destroy Christianity and to construct on its ruins a new religion, which is not Christianity.


Was Rushdoony, like Calvin, a crypto-Jew dedicated to the destruction of New Testament Christianity, as outlined in the Protocols?


“The most devastating blows against the Christian religion are now being struck from within by Jewish moles, who have infiltrated Christian groups, often at the highest levels, for the sole purpose of continuing their destructive work. They intend nothing less than the ultimate annihilation of the Christian faith and the eternal enslavement of their victims, whom they always refer to with the utmost contempt as ‘goyim’, or cattle.” (The War Against Christianity, Eustace Mullins)


Protocol No. 17 We Shall Destroy the Clergy

“2. Freedom of conscience has been declared everywhere, so that now only years divide us from the moment of the complete wrecking of that Christian religion...

“5. But, in the meantime, while we are re-educating youth in new traditional religions and afterwards in ours, we shall not overtly lay a finger on existing churches, but we shall fight against them by criticism calculated to produce schism.”


“...Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth? (Luke 18:8)


Protocol No. 11 - We are Wolves

“4. The Goyim are a flock of sheep, and we are their wolves. And you know what happens when the wolves get hold of the flock?”


The Lord Jesus Christ warned his flock that there would be Judaizers—crypto-Jews—who were grievous wolves that would enter his flock by stealth and whose goal was “the complete wrecking of that Christian religion.” (Protocol 17:2)


“For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.” (Acts.20:29-30)

“And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.” (Galatians 2:4-5)


Christian Reconstructionism’s relation to Dominionism is that they are basically the same ideology with slight variations. “Some sociologists and critics refer to Reconstructionism as a type of ‘Dominionism’. These critics claim the frequent use of the word, ‘dominion’, by Reconstructionist writers, strongly associates the critical term, Dominionism, with this movement. As an ideological form of Dominionism, Reconstructionism is sometimes held up as the most typical form of Dominion Theology.” (“Christian Reconstructionism”) 


Dominionism omits mention of “reconstruction,” which implies the destruction of the culture and of Christianity. The term ‘Dominionism’ appeals to many Christians who may not consider themselves to be Calvinists. Instead of reconstructing Christianity on the ruins of traditional Christianity, Dominionists work to establish the Kingdom of God on earth. Like Reconstructionism, however, Dominionism also has a semblance of foundation in the Old Testament, albeit prior to the Mosaic Law. Dominionism is based on a misreading of God’s command to Adam and Eve: “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” (Genesis 1:28)


The following critical analysis of the Dominionist cult cites a pamphlet published by Paul Weyrich’s Free Congress Foundation, “The Integration of Theory and Practice: A Program for the New Traditionalist Movement.” Although its author, Eric Heubeck, doesn't call it a manifesto for revolution, it certainly reads like one. The neo-Gnostic Jihadists critique correctly states, “the language is comparable to the eighteenth century revolutionaries who were actually trying to tear down Christian civilization.”


Dominionism: The Cult of Neo-Gnostic Jihadists


Many CNP members are adherents of Dominionism. Dominionism is a popular religio-political doctrine that is gradually co-opting Protestant Christian evangelicalism. It is premised upon a gross misinterpretation of Genesis 1:28. Basically, Dominionism holds that the Church must dominate all social and governmental institutions. According to this radical form of theology, Jesus is either unwilling or unable to return to Earth until the Church stages a successful political coup. Thus, Jesus’ kingdom is reduced to a secular government established by and maintained through secular power. Chris Hedges provides a fairly accurate description of Dominionism:

What the disparate sects of this movement, known as Dominionism, share is an obsession with political power. A decades-long refusal to engage in politics at all following the Scopes trial has been replaced by a call for Christian “dominion” over the nation and, eventually, over the earth itself. Dominionists preach that Jesus has called them to build the kingdom of God in the here and now, whereas previously it was thought we would have to wait for it. America becomes, in this militant biblicism, an agent of God, and all political and intellectual opponents of America’s Christian leaders are viewed, quite simply, as agents of Satan.

Readers who are not acquainted with Dominionists may find such a description too fantastic to accept. After all, the average small town church that is familiar to most people does not conform to the Dominionist model. Those who doubt that such a movement exists would find the Dominionist tract, “The Integration of Theory and Practice: A Program for the New Traditionalist Movement quite enlightening. Written by Eric Heubeck for CNP member Paul Weyrich’s Free Congress Foundation, this document perfectly presents the gospel of Dominionism. In it, Heubeck writes:

It must be emphasized that this new movement will not be “disengaged” from the wider society, only “differently engaged.” We are, quite simply, replacing political activism with cultural activism as the center of our focus. And while the visibility of the new movement will be less pronounced than the existing (political) conservative movement in the short term, the seeds that we now sow will have dramatic repercussions over the long term. We have the capacity to fundamentally transform the face of American culture in the 21st century by following a different path, one built on the aggressive dissemination of our cultural values, rather than the idle hope that enough of our cultural values still remain in the body of the American people to carry us on to a few more isolated electoral victories.

We will never stop being engaged in the wider culture. We will not “hunker down” and wait for the storm to blow over. Our strategy will be to bleed this corrupt culture dry. We will pick off the most intelligent and creative individuals in our society, the individuals who help give credibility to the current regime. To do this, we will promote a set of beliefs more compelling than that of our opponents. We will launch a movement with more energy and more intensity than our opponents are capable of summoning.

In a passage that echoes the revolutionary fervor of Robespierre’s radical Jacobinism, Heubeck declares:

Our movement will be entirely destructive, and entirely constructive. We will not try to reform the existing institutions. We only intend to weaken them, and eventually destroy them. We will endeavor to knock our opponents off-balance and unsettle them at every opportunity. All of our constructive energies will be dedicated to the creation of our own institutions.

Heubeck goes on to say that the Dominionists “will use guerrilla tactics to undermine the legitimacy of the dominant regime”. None of what Heubeck writes resembles the Jesus presented in the Gospels. Instead, the language is comparable to the eighteenth century revolutionaries who were actually trying to tear down Christian civilization. Nonetheless, Heubeck’s words capture the heart and soul of Dominionism. Several CNP members subscribe to Dominionism. These include Gary North, D. James Kennedy, Howard Ahmanson, Jr., and Marvin Olasky.


Eric Heubeck’s revolutionary manifesto is an eye-opener. Critics associate Christian Dominionism with Satainc cults like the Process Church and Freemasonry, which orchestrated the French Revolution, which “would act as a precursory model for all subsequent socialist revolutions. No wonder non-Christians view Christianity as one more religion in a progression of manmade religions that cause wars and revolutions in their long march toward world domination.


“Essentially, Dominionism is the product of religious engineering. Sociologist William Sims Bainbridge defines religious engineering as “the conscious, systematic, skilled creation of a new religion” (“New Religions, Science, and Secularization,”). Typically, the religion that is designed affirms the socially and politically expedient contentions of those engineering it. For instance, the Process Church, which was a satanic cult that Bainbridge conducted a five-year ethnographic study with, engineered a religion that suited its Hegelian Weltanschauung and hedonistic practices (“Social Construction from Within: Satan’s Process,”). Older occult organizations, like Freemasonry, combined elements of the ancient Mystery religions with metaphysical naturalism, materialism, and transformism (of a somewhat Lamarckian variety that would presage Darwinism) to engineer a secular faith in “progress.” Of course, this technocratic evangel of “progress” would help to spawn the Enlightenment, which was the edifying secular religion of the radical sociopolitical Utopians of the French Revolution. In turn, the French Revolution would act as a precursory model for all subsequent socialist revolutions. Most Establishment members adhere to some variant of Enlightenment rationalism. Thus, the entire Establishment could qualify as the product of centuries of religious engineering. It comes as little surprise that the CNP is attached to this vast conspiratorial body. Like its predecessors, the CNP is continuing the tradition of religious engineering in pursuit of political and social hegemony.

“The specific variety of Dominionism that preoccupies CNP members is Theocratic Dominionism or Hard Dominionism. This particular strain of Dominionist thought advocates “a future in which all the institutions of society will be governed by the principles of their form of Christian faith”. The postmillennialist eschatology of Calvinism reflects the paradigmatic character of this militant belief system. In fact, Dominionism is derivative of Christian Reconstructionism, a very rigid form of theocratic Calvinism. In a way, John Calvin’s authoritarian Geneva was a precursor to the theocratic societal configuration envisioned by some Dominionists.” (“Dominionism: The Cult of Neo-Gnostic Jihadists ”)