By Phillip Collins and Paul Collins
Neocons and Evangelicals: Seduced by the Technocrats
Elements of the technocratic Enlightenment within the Evangelical establishment are made evident by the movement’s advocacy of neoconservativism. The cult of neoconservativism has always paraded around under a patriotic, pro-American, anticommunist facade. What lies behind this veneer? Frank Fischer answers this question in his book Technocracy and the Politics of Expertise: ". . .neoconservativism is at base an elitist ideology aimed at promoting a new group of conservative technocrats." (172)
To promote their own variety of Technocracy, neoconservatives present themselves as the antithesis to left-wing "policy professionals." However, the conflict between these two is superficial at best. As is the case with all good Hegelian dialectics, the neoconservative antithesis is not dichotomously related to its alleged technocratic opposition. Fischer elaborates:
Neoconservatives regularly argue that knowledge elites are a threat to democracy. But if this is their primary concern, their solution is scarcely designed to remedy the problem. Indeed, by challenging the Democratic party’s use of policy expertise with a counterintelligentsia, they implicitly accept—and approve of—the evolving technocratic terrain. Developing a conservative cadre of policy analysts cannot be interpreted as a measure designed to return power to the people. (171)
Fischer correctly argues that Neoconservativism’s advocacy of a so-called "conservative cadre of policy analysts" precludes citizen participation:
Neoconservatives doubtless maintain that their policy advisers speak for different political values: Rather than the welfare state and bureaucratic paternalism, conservative experts advocate democracy and free market individualism. Such an argument, however, fails to address the critical issue. As a system of decision making geared toward expert knowledge, technocracy—liberal or conservative—necessarily blocks meaningful participation for the average citizen. Ultimately only those who can interpret the complex technical languages that increasingly frame economic and social issues have access to the play of power Democratic rhetoric aside, those who nurture a conservative intelligentsia in reality only help to extend an elite system of policy-making. (171-72)
Whether under the superfluous appellations of conservative or liberal, "policy professionals" still constitute what Wells referred to as a "democracy of experts." Neoconservativism’s promotion of its own "policy professionals" betrays the ideology’s technocratic propensities. Rhetoric concerning "democracy" and "free market individualism" amounts to little more than pageantry. Neoconservativism is but the latest incarnation of the technocratic movement and represents another stage in the sociopolitical Darwinism’s metastasis.
Neoconservativism’s technocratic pedigree is also graphically illustrated by its adherents’ strong support for FDR’s New Deal. Irving Kristol, the "godfather of neoconservatism," states in his book Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea that neocons: ". . .accepted the New Deal in principle. . ." (x). Later in his book, Kristol writes:
In a way, the symbol of the influence of neoconservative thinking on the Republican party was the fact that Ronald Reagan could praise Franklin D. Roosevelt as a great American president-praise echoed by Newt Gingrich a dozen years later, when it is no longer so surprising. (379)
Why were neoconservatives so amicable towards the socialism of the New Deal? The answer is because Roosevelt's Marxist proclivities harmonized with the neoconservative variety of Technocracy. It is interesting to note that "godfather" Kristol was a Trotskyist in his youth. Kristol makes it clear that he is unrepentant: "I regard myself lucky to have been a young Trotskyist and I have not a single bitter memory" (Neoconservativism: The Autobiography of an Idea, 13). The statist tradition found in Marxism is also carried on by the neocons. This is another point made clear by Kristol: "Neocons do not feel that kind of alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable" ("The Neoconservative Persuasion," no pagination).
Several neoconservative ideologues have espoused socialist ideas. Former neoconservative Michael Lind admits:
The fact that most of the younger neocons were never on the left is irrelevant; they are the intellectual (and, in the case of William Kristol and John Podhoretz, the literal) heirs of older ex-leftists. The idea that the United States and similar societies are dominated by a decadent, postbourgeois "new class" was developed by thinkers in the Trotskyist tradition like James Burnham and Max Schachtman, who influenced an older generation of neocons. The concept of the "global democratic revolution" has its origins in the Trotskyist Fourth International's vision of permanent revolution. The economic determinist idea that liberal democracy is an epiphenomenon of capitalism, promoted by neocons like Michael Novak, is simply Marxism with entrepreneurs substituted for proletarians as the heroic subjects of history. (No pagination)
Neoconservativism, which has been embraced by the controlled Evangelical movement, is actually a creature of the political left. It is truly ironic that secular progressives would condemn their pseudo-Christian opponents for these dubious associations. If secular progressives are genuinely disturbed by the political system that the CNP, the Dominionists, and the Evangelical establishment are creating, then they must seriously question their own vision for society. Both sides are merely variants of the same neo-Gnostic vision and strive to immanentize the Eschaton. Both sides are merely variants of sociopolitical Darwinism and view global government as the unavoidable outcome of man’s alleged developmental ascent. This is a vintage Hegelian dialectic. The only difference is the name of the patron deity exalted by both sides. The god of secular progressives is man himself, enthroned to rule over a technocratic Utopia. The god of the Dominionists is a deistic Christ who proffers the neo-Gnostic mandate for a worldly kingdom sustained through worldly power.
Evidently, the culture war has provided fertile soil for the power elite’s Hegelian activism. The combatants in this dialectical struggle are merely fellow travelers on convergent paths toward a Hegelian synthesis. That synthesis is already underway, as is evidenced by the political ties being forged between leftist evangelicals and Dominionists. One example of this alliance is the recent "meeting of the minds" between Presidential hopeful Barack Obama and Dominionist, Mega-Church pastor Rick Warren. The pretext for their partnership seems to be AIDS awareness and prevention. After all, Warren invited Obama to a two-day AIDS summit held at his church (Donovan, no pagination). As cynical as it may sound, AIDS may be the last thing on Obama’s mind when it comes to his coalition with Warren. Democrats have come to appreciate how important it is to have a few Dominionists in their pockets if they want to seize this country’s sizeable Christian vote. Warren’s teachings are pure Dominionism. Sarah Leslie provides an examination into the Dominionist elements of Warren’s global P.E.A.C.E. plan:
Warren has audaciously called for a "Second Reformation" based upon his global P.E.A.C.E. Plan, which is a study in dominionism. Leftists who fret over Warren’s foray into AIDS may miss the more serious dominionist ramifications of his overall global plan. Warren intends to amass the world’s largest volunteer "army" of "one billion foot soldiers" to implement his global P.E.A.C.E. Plan. (No pagination)
It is very interesting that Warren refers to his Dominionists scheme as a "Second Reformation." The father of the first Reformation, Martin Luther, was actually an unconscious agent of secularization. Under Catholicism, the truth had become the province of priests and other self-proclaimed "mediators of God." However, Luther made the mistake of adopting nominalism as one of the chief philosophical foundations for his doctrines. In The Western Experience, the authors write:
[S]ome of Luther’s positions had roots in nominalism, the most influential philosophical and theological movement of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, which had flourished at his old monastery. (450)
By the time Luther’s ideas were codified in the Augsburg Confession, nominalism was already beginning to co-opt Christianity. Nominalism’s rejection of a knowable God harmonized with the superstitious notions of the time. Misunderstanding the troubles that beset them, many peasants made the anthropic attribution of the Black Death to God’s will. Following this baseless assumption to its logical conclusion, many surmised that God was neither merciful nor knowable. Such inferences clearly overlooked the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which represented the ultimate act of grace on God’s part. Nevertheless, the superstitious populace were beginning to accept the new portrayal of God as an indifferent deistic spirit. Nominalism merely edified such beliefs. Invariably, nominalism would seduce those who would eventually convert to Protestantism.
Christians should have had more than a few philosophical misgivings with nominalism, especially in light of its commonalities with humanism:
Although nominalists and humanists were frequently at odds, they did share a dissatisfaction with aspects of the medieval intellectual tradition, especially the speculative abstractions of medieval thought; and both advocated approaches to reality that concentrated on the concrete and the present and demanded a strict awareness of method. (424)
Suddenly, Christianity was infused with materialism and radical empiricism. There was an occult character to both of these philosophical positions. Radical empiricism rejects causality, thereby abolishing any epistemological certainty and reducing reality to a holograph that can be potentially manipulated through the "sorcery" of science. Materialism emphasizes the primacy of matter, inferring that the physical universe is a veritable golem that created itself. Despite their clearly anti-theistic nature, these ideas began to insinuate themselves within Christianity.
With nominalist epistemology enshrined, man was ontologically isolated from his Creator. Knowledge was purely the province of the senses and the physical universe constituted the totality of reality itself. Increasingly, theologians invoked naturalistic interpretations of the Scriptures, thereby negating the miraculous and supernatural nature of God. The spiritual elements that remained embedded in Christianity assumed more of a Gnostic character, depicting the physical body as an impediment to man’s knowledge of God and venerating death as a welcome release from a corporeal prison. Gradually, a Hegelian synthesis between spiritualism and materialism was occurring. The result was a paganized Christianity, which hardly promised the abundant life offered by its Savior.
Luther’s unwitting role in the popularization of such thinking suggests an occult manipulation. There is already a body of evidence supporting the contention that occult elements had penetrated Christendom and were working towards its demise. Malachi Martin states:
As we know, some of the chief architects of the Reformation-—Martin Luther, Philip Melanchthon, Johannes Reuchlin, Jan Amos Komensky—-belonged to occult societies. (521)
Author William Bramley presents evidence that backs Martin’s contention:
Luther’s seal consisted of his initials on either side of two Brotherhood symbols: the rose and the cross. The rose and cross are the chief symbols of the Rosicrucian Order. The word "Rosicrucian" itself comes from the Latin words "rose"("rose") and "cruces" ("cross"). (205)
Luther’s involvement in the Rosicrucian Order made him an ideal instrument of secret societies. Michael Howard explains the motive for this manipulation:
The Order had good political reasons for initially supporting the Protestant cause. On the surface, as heirs to the pre-Christian Ancient Wisdom, the secret societies would have gained little from religious reform. However, by supporting the Protestant dissidents they helped to weaken the political power of the Roman Catholic Church, the traditional enemy of the Cathars, the Templars and the Freemasons. (54).
However, occultism was not the only belief system benefiting from the Reformation. Elitism and oligarchy would also receive a boost from Luther’s activities. It should be recalled that many of the secret societies supporting Luther acted as elite conduits. While Luther was already ideologically aligned with the elites in many ways, he officially became their property in 1521. In this year, the papacy’s secular representative, Emperor Charles V, summoned Luther to a Diet at the city known as Worms (Chambers, Hanawalt, et al. 449). Luther was to defend himself against a papal decree that excommunicated him from the Church (449).
At the Diet, Luther refused to recant any of his beliefs (450). This led to the Emperor issuing an imperial edict for the monk’s arrest (450). However, Luther was rescued by the Elector Frederick III of Saxony (450). Frederick staged a kidnapping of the monk and hid him away in Wartburg Castle (450). The regional warlord of Saxony had much to gain by protecting Luther. Frederick represented a group of German princes that opposed the influence of the Church and its secular representative, the Emperor (450). These elites would use Luther’s teachings to justify breaking with the ecclesiastical authorities and establishing their own secular systems. In the end, the Reformation reformed nothing at all. It caused a division in Christendom and led Europe down the path of secularization. Howard states:
Indirectly the Reformation gave the impetus for the Scientific Revolution of the seventeenth century, which centred on Newton, and led to the founding of the Royal Society after the English Civil War. (148)
The "Scientific Revolution" facilitated by the Reformation led to the popularization of Baconian concepts, which were radically scientistic and occult in character. Commensurate with this paradigm shift was the rise of the elite’s first secular epistemological cartel and the acculturation of the masses to technocratic ideas. Warren might be repeating this process, even though it was damaging to Christian civilization and unleashed an era of some of the worst pagan brutality. Leftists everywhere have joined Warren and other Dominionists in trying to achieve these plans. Sarah Leslie writes:
Evangelical Leftists (Tom Sine, Ron Sider, Jim Wallis and others) have always hobnobbed with the dominionists. Many of the key Leftist dominionists have been coalescing around an agenda to eradicate world poverty, laboring with [Dominionist] Rick Warren to implement the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals. Micah Challenge is one of the key organizations operating in this realm. A number of international mission networking agencies have formed alliances around these mutual kingdom aspirations. Working to end poverty may seem laudable on the surface. But scratch the surface and dominionism appears. Charity is not what it seems. Charity is a vehicle to maneuver dominionism into the best possible international publicity spotlight. And altruistic appeals for charitable sacrifice are a mechanism to sign up recruits in the billion man army. (No pagination)
The United Nations can hardly be characterized as a right-wing Christian organization. Historically, the UN has promoted Marxist economic policies of wealth redistribution, which would upset the stomach of any patriotic American Christian. Moreover, the UN has advocated Malthusian programs of population control that have outraged many traditional Christians. Secular progressives like Michelle Goldberg claim that the Dominionists and the CNP are opposed to the United Nations. There may, in fact, be some conflicts between these factions. To be sure, neoconservatives, which are closely aligned with the Dominionists and the CNP, have been overtly critical of the United Nations. However, the conflict is superficial at best. These factions are only at variance over the globalist blueprint that each is attempting to actuate. Looming on the horizon is the Hegelian synthesis of these warring factions.
In short, the culture war has become a dialectical manipulation. It is a catalyst for Hegelian activism, which is a specialty of the power elite. Christians must dislodge themselves from partisan affiliations, which are susceptible to Hegelian activism. Like the Apostles of Jesus Christ in the early Church, the modern Christian shall have to operate on a grass roots level. Otherwise, the Church shall become the prostitute for the State. The culture war can be won, but not through strict adherence to partisan affiliations and political parties. When the Church relies upon such machinations, it becomes embroiled in the dialectical feuds of elite factions. The only true victor in these dialectical feuds shall be the global oligarchs. Truth will be the final and most tragic casualty of the conflict. Such are the consequences of Hegelian thinking. The real war is not between left and right, but right and wrong.
In the twelfth and final installment of this investigation, we shall examine the great exodus of Christians away from the Hegelian manipulation of partisan politics.
Sources Cited
All sources will be presented in the twelfth and final installment of this series.
Syndicate your Blog or Podcast with FeedBurner
No comments:
Post a Comment