Claim. In give-and-receive, the subject becomes the center and the object orbits it; applied to history, God establishes central figures (leaders) through whom He directs society — leaders shape masses, not the reverse, contrary to historical materialism.
Elaboration. The law of dominion by the center (D. Law of Dominion by the Center) generalizes from physical orbits (earth-sun, electron-nucleus) to social order: object ‘performs circular motion centering on the subject.’ In society, this means the object follows orders, instructions, and requests from the subject.
Providentially, God ‘first forms a social environment, and then inspires the central figure to lead that environment.’ The central figure is charged with the believers-responsibility of controlling the environment. Lee enumerates historical examples: Old Testament — Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, kings, prophets; New Testament — Augustine, popes, Luther, Calvin; political leaders — Charlemagne, Henry VIII, Washington, Lincoln. Satanic counter-figures include Kaiser Wilhelm II, Hitler (Pan-Germanism), and Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao (Communism). ‘Without their thought and leadership, the rise of totalitarianism and the Communist revolutions would never have occurred.’
Lee cites Toynbee as confirmation: ‘The growths of civilizations are the work of creative individuals or creative minorities.’ Toynbee’s creative-minorities thesis is treated as pointing toward the law of dominion by the center.
The explicit polemic is against historical materialism, which ‘attaches greater importance to the environment (i.e., the social environment) than to leaders, and asserts that the masses… play the decisive role.’ Marxism treats leader-spirit as determined by material-environment-spirit (matter generates mind). Lee inverts: ‘The leaders are the subject, and the masses, the object; the leaders guide the masses… on the basis of their religious or political ideologies.’
The claim is structurally important for UC ecclesiology: it justifies the centrality of true-parents in providence and explains why God works through specific named individuals rather than through diffuse social forces. Critics from social-history traditions (Annales school, structuralism) push that great-man history overstates individual agency. UT bites the bullet: yes, individuals — chosen and charged — drive providence. The mass/leader inversion is the chapter’s most concrete operationalization of believers-responsibility.
See also. history-is-good-vs-evil-not-class-struggle, law-of-repulsion-as-good-evil-struggle, ut-individual-image-vs-environment