News Intelligence Analysis





Conquering by Stealth and Deception

How the Dominionists Are Succeeding in Their Quest for National Control and World Power


By Katherine Yurica

September 14, 2004



Paul Weyrich’s Secret Manual on How to Win Politically



Since the writing and posting of my essay, The Despoiling of America in February 2004, there is more and more evidence that not only has a cultural war been launched, but that the plotters are winning it. “Dominionism” now looks more like a term that is applicable to both right-wing-religious believers and to the neo-cons who were created and born in an astonishing resurgence of an immoral Machiavellianism: both groups believe in domination and control. While religious adherents adopted a decidedly heretical Christian doctrine,[1] the neo-cons continue to use the American churches to help execute their cabal. It was expressed this way by a Yurica Report talk board participant:

“One of the more sinister aspects of the current crisis is the influence of Leo Strauss on the pro-war, “neo-cons” who are determining so much of our foreign policy. While the Christian right thinks it is running the show, Leo Strauss’ irreligious philosophy is actually in control. Strauss believed that the rulers should not be religious, but should use religion to manage the people — which he evidently regarded as a stupid herd. He also believed that a state of war was great for controlling and directing the masses. So it’s all come together: the weirdest book of the bible [Revelations], with its mysterious disasters; the scheming behind the scenes warmongers and an incident of terrorism that has served admirably as the Project for a New American Century’s hoped-for ‘new Pearl Harbor.’” Adrien Rain

Americans and the main-stream media have been very slow in catching on to the fact that we are in a war—a war that is cultural, religious and political. One document not mentioned in The Despoiling of America is the closeted manual that reveals how the right wing in American politics can get and keep power. It was created under the tutelage of Paul Weyrich, the man who founded the Free Congress Foundation. Conservative leaders consider Weyrich to be the “most powerful man in American politics today.” There is no question of his immense influence in conservative circles. He is also considered the founder of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank made possible with funding from Joseph Coors and Richard Mellon-Scaife. Weyrich served as the Founding President from 1973-1974.


To get a sense of how revolutionary the political fight for power in the U.S. is, we need to look at a few quotes from what has been dubbed, “Paul Weyrich’s Teaching Manual,” the Free Congress Foundation’s strategic plan on how to gain control of the government of the U.S. Written by Eric Heubeck, and titled, “The Integration of Theory and Practice: A Program for the New Traditionalist Movement,” the document is no longer available at the Free Congress Foundation’s website for obvious reasons. But excerpts are published at the Yurica Report. The excerpts explain why the Dominionists are winning; the tactics they endorse are sheer Machiavellian:


I have paraphrased the four immoral principles of the Dominionist movement as the following:


1)      Falsehoods are not only acceptable, they are a necessity. The corollary is: The masses will accept any lie if it is spoken with vigor, energy and dedication.

2)      It is necessary to be cast under the cloak of “goodness” whereas all opponents and their ideas must be cast as “evil.”

3)      Complete destruction of every opponent must be accomplished through unrelenting personal attacks.

4)      The creation of the appearance of overwhelming power and brutality is necessary in order to destroy the will of opponents to launch opposition of any kind.


According to Jeffry Sharlet, Hitler’s Mein Kampf and William L. Shirer’s The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich are studied as textbooks in a particular leadership training group he wrote about in Harper’s magazine.


Eric Heubeck, the author of Mr. Weyrich’s manual, does not mince words. Here is a sample of the most immoral political program ever adopted by a political movement in this country. Notice that the manual begins with the adoption of the fundamental fact of Machiavellianism:


“This essay is based on the belief that the truth of an idea is not the primary reason for its acceptance. Far more important is the energy and dedication of the idea’s promoters—in other words, the individuals composing a social or political movement…


“We must, as Mr. Weyrich has suggested, develop a network of parallel cultural institutions existing side-by-side with the dominant leftist cultural institutions. The building and promotion of these institutions will require the development of a movement that will not merely reform the existing post-war conservative movement, but will in fact be forced to supersede it—if it is to succeed at all—because it will pursue a very different strategy and be premised on a very different view of its role in society….


“There will be three main stages in the unfolding of this movement. The first stage will be devoted to the development of a highly motivated elite able to coordinate future activities. The second stage will be devoted to the development of institutions designed to make an impact on the wider elite and a relatively small minority of the masses. The third stage will involve changing the overall character of American popular culture….


“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….


“We will maintain a constant barrage of criticism against the Left. We will attack the very legitimacy of the Left. We will not give them a moment’s rest. We will endeavor to prove that the Left does not deserve to hold sway over the heart and mind of a single American.  We will offer constant reminders that there is an alternative, there is a better way. When people have had enough of the sickness and decay of today’s American culture, they will be embraced by and welcomed into the New Traditionalist movement. The rejection of the existing society by the people will thus be accomplished by pushing them and pulling them simultaneously.


“We will use guerrilla tactics to undermine the legitimacy of the dominant regime…


“We must create a countervailing force that is just as adept as the Left at intimidating people and institutions that are used as tools of left-wing activism but are not ideologically committed, such as Hollywood celebrities, multinational corporations, and university administrators. We must be feared, so that they will think twice before opening their mouths…


“We will be results-oriented rather than good intentions-oriented. Making a good-faith effort and being ideologically sound will be less important than advancing the goals of the movement…


“We need more people with fire in the belly, and we need a message that attracts those kinds of people….We must reframe this struggle as a moral struggle, as a transcendent struggle, as a struggle between good and evil. And we must be prepared to explain why this is so. We must provide the evidence needed to prove this using images and simple terms….”


In actuality, the concept that dominionist minded conservatives should establish parallel or dual institutions is a new form of segregation. This is especially apparent when a conservative institution offers the same services or products as the liberal oriented institutions. In other words, if it is not possible for dominionists to takeover or grab power in every institution—they create a parallel world so that the left is to be separated and segregated from the right and conservatives are urged to purchase from the conservative institutions.


The fact that Weyrich’s plan has actually been instituted is all around us. The Council on Foreign Relations is mimicked by the secretive dominionist Council for National Policy. [2] The so called “liberal” press is countered with Fox News and Sun Myung Moon’s Washington Times, and dominionist talk show hosts spew their right wing political views and venom from coast to coast. Public schools are countered with private home and chartered schools. And in the last few months a move has been made within the churches to break-up and divide denominations along the lines of conservative beliefs in certain social issues so that two sets of churches will be created: one that practices right wing politics and one that is liberal!


It almost mimics what Jesus said he would do in the Bible: those on the Lord’s left will be cast into outer darkness, those on the Lord’s right will be the chosen elect, the over-comers of God’s people. This biblical imagery appears to be a powerful biblical affirmation for church-goers who desire to be on the Lord’s “right” politically as well—until one realizes that when the two groups of people stand facing the Lord—the mirror image is reversed: those on his right will be those facing him on the left; those on the Lord’s left will be those facing him on the Lord’s right!  It’s just an aside, but it suggests to me that justice will actually be done, when the Lord says, “I never knew you” to those who loudly proclaim their hypocritical religious devotion to him, while ignoring his command to feed the poor and cloth the naked. The biblical passage goes on to say that those about to be cast out ask, “When did we fail to feed the poor and cloth the naked?” The answer is: “In as much as you did it unto the least of these my children—you did it unto me.” When dominionists seek to privatize medicare and social security, and deregulate corporate controls on whole industries, so that the poor and needy become poorer and needier, they have done it to the Lord.




The Myth of Terrorism and How the Corporate
Complex Joined the Power Grab


Yes! To this thought I hold with firm persistence;
The last result of wisdom stamps it true:
He only earns his freedom and existence,
Who daily conquers them anew.
Thus here, by dangers girt, shall glide away
Of childhood, manhood, age, the vigorous day:
And such a throng I fain would see,--
Stand on free soil among a people free!
Then dared I hail the Moment fleeing:
“Ah, still delay—thou art so fair!” 

Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe, from Faust



The entire strategic conversion of the U.S.A. and its constitutional order into a theocratic corporate market-state is based upon an alleged threat to the “security” of the country. The political analysis of how, why and the historical “necessity” for the market-state has been laid out in a book for all of us to read. It’s the road map that joins the corporate world with the religious world.


The eloquent analysis from an eloquent and brilliant mind can be found and read in:  The Shield of Achilles by Philip Bobbitt. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 2002. Almost the entire book was written prior to September 11, 2001; however Bobbitt made insertions into his text to account for 9/11’s impact upon America’s foreign and domestic policies. Bobbitt uses Shell's Scenario Planning as his model to test possible scenarios in risk planning for the future. His book was being offered for sale at several think tank web sites when I decided to purchase it. He is a lawyer--professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Texas Law School in Austin. Inscriptions in two of his books show that he may have had a recent Christian conversion experience. He's a brilliant man. He was a fellow at King's College, London, in the War Studies Department and was counselor on international law at the Department of State. He was the director of intelligence, senior director for critical infrastructure and senior director for strategic planning at the National Security Council (under Clinton). He cites Condoleezza Rice' writings several times in the book.


Time Magazine published Bobbitt's essay explaining his book on September 9, 2002. He wrote: 


“If September 11 is the forerunner of a new world conflict, coping with the conflict could bring a new constitutional order in its wake. In the 21st century, what might be called ‘market states’ could replace nation-states. Market states will have the same borders and political systems as nation-states but will shift important responsibilities from government to the private sector; multinational corporations will become surrogate agents of government, filling roles that government can no longer play and blurring the boundaries between political and corporate leadership....”


My response to Mr. Bobbitt is this: Corporations are not democratic bodies. They do not make good governments. (I have 20 years of experience working within a corporate entity that attempts to govern a community. Its record is dismal; it acknowledges no constitutional rights for its citizens. Only the bylaws and Articles of Incorporation hold sway and even these are frequently broken should it be advantageous for the board to do so.) 


I call Bobbitt a dominionist based on his political preferences and his religious leanings. For instance Bobbitt prefers the privatization of medical care, social security, pensions and schools. (At page 671.) He prefers the discouragement of government regulations of any kind and will tolerate income disparities. He prefers that job creation be achieved at the cost of job security. And he prefers an all-volunteer military. [3]


Moreover, Bobbitt prefers a laizze faire “entrepreneurial” market-state that is confrontational to workers as opposed to two other possible market states which he creates as models: The “mercantile model” (in which he says consumer opportunities are sacrificed to the long-term opportunities of the society as a whole) and the “managerial model,” which he says is often called the Soziale Marktwirtschaft, (p. 672) (Social Free-Market Economy) that provides a social safety net for society. Thus Bobbitt places himself completely in line with the political right’s agenda. Moreover, while holding the Christian banner aloft, he that Christianity betrays. For he willingly places corporate business interests above the welfare of the people. In my understanding of the scriptures, Bobbitt’s model is not a Christian model—it is in fact the antithesis of Christianity. (In this I agree with Jimmy Carter.)


One of the more astonishing statements I came across in Bobbitt’s discussion and praise for the entrepreneurial market-state is this:


“The Entrepreneurial Model tends to loosen the identification that citizens feel with the larger polity: autonomy and individual achievement are so prized and the consumption of particular goods so meaningful an act of self-definition that the citizens of these states ‘invent’ their citizenships, identifying themselves with those subgroups within the state with whom they share a consumption pattern.” (Page 670.)


Mr. Bobbitt has just described corporate heaven! But in reality, Bobbitt is envisioning a Faustian perversity, for he replaces Faust’s vision of a free people standing on free land—the American ideal—with a vision of citizens identifying with their peers based on each other’s pattern of purchases. Faust was willing to give his eternal soul for his vision of freedom. What price does Bobbitt and the religious-right pay for their vision I wonder?


Let’s look at another vision. This one is based in fear. Bobbitt regards terrorist groups as “virtual states.” What an incredible elevation of the Mafia concept. We are asked to accept superpower equivalence for those criminals who have the imagination to network! Hence the war against the virtual state can last 100 years or more. Bobbitt’s emersion in war and his fear of attacks blinds him to issues of what is moral in warfare. He lumps retaliatory military strikes by the U.S. for an attack upon the U.S. with pre-emptive strikes against an alleged enemy.


I want to contrast two passages. One is written by Bobbitt, the other by Mr. Bush’s writers.  First Mr. Bobbitt:


“…[N]uclear weapons strategy, clandestine intelligence collection, and covert action sometimes require a level of secrecy that is incompatible with open government or even the relation between parliamentary oversight and the citizenry that links government to the people…It is simply absurd to think that a system of nuclear deterrence could be maintained if the president had to go to Congress for a declaration of war before launching a retaliatory or pre-emptive strike.” (p. 235)


In September, 2002, Mr. Bush delivered a document to congress titled, “The National Security Strategy of the United States of America.”  In it congressmen read:


“For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack….We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today’s adversaries. Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means…Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction—weapons that can be easily concealed, delivered covertly, and used without warning…To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.”


Mr. Bush needs war. Mr. Bobbitt sells the idea of the necessity of war in this quote:


“There is a widespread view that war is simply a pathology of the State, that healthy states will not fight wars. This view ignores the role strategy plays in the formation and continuance of states. War, like law, sustains the State by giving it the means to carry out its purposes of protection, preservation, and defense.” (p. 780)


How Machiavellian Mr. Bobbitt sounds. Peace is bad for us. And war is not only good—it’s a necessity.


I would add this: Mr. Bush’s April, 2004 press conference brought a new vision I had not heard before: “America” he said, “is called to bring freedom and liberty to the people of the world.” It immediately reminded me of Pat Robertson’s phrases. The words “liberty” and “freedom” had special meaning to him and to “Christians” like Patrick Henry:  “Liberty carries a heavy responsibility. It demands Christian self government…” (This definition was offered on the 700 Club on July 1, 1986.)


Does Mr. Bush mean that the U.S. will preemptively invade other “heathen” and “uncivilized” nations and establish “Christian” governments over them?  Maybe. 


Lastly, in closing his book, Philip Bobbitt reiterates his own uppermost emotion: “We are entering a fearful time, a time that will call on all our resources, moral as well as intellectual and material…” He then closes his amazing work with this:


“I said to the man who stood at the Gate of the Year: ‘Give me a light, that I might tread safely into the unknown.’ And he replied, ‘Go out into the darkness and put your hand into the Hand of God. That shall be to you better than light and safer than a known way.’” (p. 823)


As a Christian, I always thought that God was light or illumination and this is particularly true because Jesus said, "I am the light of the world." I also took to heart Psalm 23: where we are taught “to fear no evil.” In the end, all that Philip Bobbitt has is the fact that he is surrounded by darkness. He has placed his hand in the hand of someone he thought was God, but he cannot really see who it is that is holding his hand.


Pity the nation that submerges itself in fear and its rhetoric. Americans and the British did not get through WWII by dwelling on fear. They did not overcome their enemies by cowering in the darkness and placing their hands in the hand of an unknown stranger. They won because they overcame their fears and outfought their enemies. That is our task once again. These are not “fearful” times. These are the days of creativity and courage. Since when has any nation trembled before a handful of criminals? Call them what you may—Pirates? Outlaws? Gangs? Or Goliath? They have never had a future much less a projection of a hundred years of successful criminality. Our world has never been safe from dangers: mankind has been subjected to earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes, diseases, accidents, and has not death visited both the young and old? But civilization keeps marching on. Let us never follow false leaders into the valley of fear ever again.  




[1] The doctrine that Christians should seek worldly power and use it to dominate the culture of any country they occupy was first expressed by Pat Robertson on his 700 Club show in the 1980’s. On his 700 Club television show (5-1-86) Robertson said: “God’s plan is for His people, ladies and gentlemen to take dominion…What is dominion? Well, dominion is Lordship. He wants His people to reign and rule with Him…but He’s waiting for us to…extend His dominion…And the Lord says, ‘I’m going to let you redeem society. There’ll be a reformation….We are not going to stand for those coercive utopians in the Supreme Court and in Washington ruling over us any more. We’re not gonna stand for it. We are going to say, ‘we want freedom in this country, and we want power…’” Robertson said on his program the 700 Club (5-13-86):  “We’ve sat idly by long enough and said, ‘Well religion and politics don’t mix.’ Don’t you believe it. If we don’t have moral people in government then the only other people that can be in government are immoral. That’s the only way it goes. Either you have moral people in there or you have immoral people.”


[2] The Council for National Policy (CNP) was founded in 1981 when Timothy LaHaye (author of the Left Behind series) became the organization's first president. LaHaye is credited with the idea of the organization. The CNP has been cloaked in secrecy since its inception. The organization holds three meetings each year to plan the strategy for implementing its agenda. The activists meet with their financial backers who put up the money to execute the agenda of the institution. The membership list and any speeches made to the members are kept in strict secrecy. White House officials have appeared before the group, including President Bush, but their remarks have been held in secrecy. The Yurica Report obtained a list of members from several years prior that reveal the heavy weights in the Christian and hard right dominionist movement. Here is a sample: Gary Bauer, Pat Boone, Grover Norquist, Dr. Gary North and R. J. Rushdoony, (North's father-in-law, the founder of the Christian Reconstructionist and Dominionist movement), Lt. Col. Oliver North, Pat Robertson, James Robinson, Howard J. Ruff, Nelson Bunker Hunt, Howard Ahmanson, Jr., Phyllis Schlafly, Bob Jones, III, Jack Kemp, Alan Keyes, Dr. James Kennedy, Beverly LaHaye, Tim LaHaye, Marlin Maddoux, Peter Marshall, Jr., Dr. James Dobson, Jeffrey Coors, Joseph Coors, Bill Bright, Major General John K. Singlaub, Lt. General Gordon Sumner, Jerry Falwell, Father Charles Fiore, Alan Gottlieb, Lt. General Daniel O. Graham, Edwin Meese, Paul Weyrich, John W. Whitehead, Rev. DonaldWildmon, Pierre du Pont, Ann Drexel, Arnaud deBorchgrave, Richard DeVos, Terry Dolan, Sen. William Dannemeyer, Jesse Helms, etc.


[3] This latter point of an all-volunteer military may appear to be a surprising inclusion. However, it's worth looking at the dangers of an all-volunteer military. Dr. M. Scott Peck in his book The People of the Lie writes : “A draft--involuntary service--is the only thing that can keep our military sane. Without it the military will inevitably become not only specialized in its function but increasingly specialized in its pyschology. No fresh air will be let in. It will become inbred and reinforce its own values, and then, when it is once again let loose, it will run amok as it did in Vietnam. A draft is a painful thing. But so are insurance premiums; and involuntary service is the only way we have of ensuring the sanity of our military ‘left hand.’The point is that if we must have a military at all, it should hurt. As a people we should not toy with the means of mass destruction without being willing to personally bear the responsibility of wielding them. If we must kill, let us not select and train hired killers to do the dirty job for us and then forget that there's any blood involved. If we must kill, then let us honestly suffer the agony involved ourselves. Otherwise we will insulate ourselves from our own deeds, and as a whole people we will become like the individuals described in previous sections: evil. For evil arises in the refusal to acknowledge our own sins.” (At page 232)



Katherine Yurica was educated at East Los Angeles College, the University of Southern California and the USC school of law. She worked as a consultant for Los Angeles County and as a news correspondent for Christianity Today plus as a freelance investigative reporter. She is the author of three books. She is also the publisher of the Yurica Report.




Send a letter
to the editor
about this article



Back to The Yurica Report Home Page

Copyright © 2004 Yurica Report. All rights reserved.