Friday, April 06, 2007

The Deep Politics of God (Part Ten): The CNP, Dominionism, and the Ted Haggard Scandal



A GLASS DARKLY
W/ PHILLIP COLLINS


By Phillip Collins and Paul Collins

RaidersNewsNetwork.com

The Culture War: The Anatomy of a Hegelian Dialectic

Predictably, numerous left-wing ideologues have seized upon the revelations concerning the Evangelical movement as an opportunity to criminalize Christianity. Yet, most of the deep political machinations embedded within the Evangelical establishment are products of left-wing political and philosophical thought. For instance, secular progressive Michelle Goldberg characterizes the Evangelical establishment’s rejection of evolutionary theory as "William Jennings Bryan’s Revenge" (93). Yet, one must question the authenticity of several evangelicals’ anti-Darwinian sentiments. Ted Haggard is an open proponent of globalism (Sharlet, "Soldiers of Christ Part One," no pagination). Deceased Vatican insider Malachi Martin astutely characterized globalism as "sociopolitical Darwinism." Both Transnationalists and Internationalists view the emergence of a politically and economically interdependent world government as a natural corollary of man’s alleged "political evolution." Martin elaborates:

From Pope John Paul’s vantage point, the thing that seems to bind these two groups most closely in practical terms is that at heart, and philosophically speaking, both are sociopolitical Darwinists. Of course, the Pope doesn’t for a moment imagine that such activists as these are likely to take time out from their total immersion in world affairs to formulate their basic group philosophy in the same way that the Humanists have. There is no Internationalist or Transnationalist equivalent of Professor Paul Kurtz’s Humanist Manifesto II.

Still, in John Paul’s assessment, both of these globalist groups operate on the same fundamental assumptions about the meaning of human society today. Both agree on the face of it that the most important single trait that pervades the life of all nations is interdependence. And both agree that interdependence is a progressive function of evolutionary progress. Evolutionary, as in Darwin.

In practical terms, both of these groups operate on the same working assumption Charles Darwin arbitrarily adopted to rationalize his feelings about mankind’s physical origins and history. If it worked so well for Darwin, they almost seem to say, why not expand the idea of orderly progress through natural evolution to include such sociopolitical arrangements as corporations and nations? In this view, the most useful of Darwin’s concepts is that of human existence as essentially a struggle in which the weakest perish, the fittest survive and the strongest flourish.

When applied to sociopolitical arrangements, this Darwinist process seems almost to dictate the Internationalist and Transnationalist one-world view of things. The continuing clash and contention in the world as it has been until now has resulted in a slow evolution of those who have survived from one stage of interdependent order to another. From time to time, natural "catastrophes" have intervened, forcing "nature" to take another path. But at each new stage, interdependence has become more important and more complex.

The greater the interdependence between groups, the higher the evolutionary stage, the more the balance achieved between interdependent groups results in the common good.

The view of the Internationalists and Transnationalists is that they are the ones who are equipped to bring mankind to the highest level of the sociopolitical evolution. Their effort is to bring together into one harmonious whole all those separate parts of our world that have not yet "evolved" into a natural cohesion for the common good. (314-15)

Although Haggard espouses an ostensibly anti-Darwinian Weltanschauung, his advocacy of globalism betrays his sociopolitical Darwinian propensities. Thus, Haggard only disagrees with Darwinism’s developmental biology, not its principles. He has absolutely no problem with a world ruled according to the dictum, "Survival of the fittest." This is made painfully apparent by Haggard’s enthusiastic support for the neoconservative doctrine of preemptive war (Sharlet, "Soldiers of Christ Part One," no pagination). According to the sociopolitical Darwinism of the global elite, preemptive warfare is central to the evolutionary development of humanity. Anisa Abd el Fattah explains:

The idea of preventive wars, which we now call preemptive strikes, became popular during the rise of Social Darwinism and Eugenics, and led to the mass killings of those deemed weak, handicapped, poor and of inferior races throughout Asia, Europe, and the European colonies in Africa. The idea of perpetual war, and disaster as a means by which to accelerate the evolution of the human species was also popular during that era, as it is now. (No pagination)

Haggard and his fellow evangelicals may publicly decry evolutionary theory, but they are no less sociopolitical Darwinians themselves. Evangelicals like Haggard are responsible for embedding an unconscious strain of Darwinian thought within mainstream Christianity. The resulting aberration is a movement that spouts euphemisms about the "love of Christ" and, simultaneously, promotes virulently anti-Christian ideas and concepts. For the past seven years, pastors all over America have urged their congregations to support a presidency that engages in the Darwinian practice of preemptive warfare. Na├»ve souls who have never even cracked a Bible allow their fiercely partisan Church leaders to dictate which presidential candidates constitute "God’s elect." In this sense, the modern Evangelical movement has done even more than the Enlightenment to establish a technocratic dictatorship.

Meanwhile, secular progressives have the nerve to act outraged. The controlled Evangelical movement is merely using the name of Christ to create that which secular progressives work to establish in the name of "Man." In actuality, secular progressives are no less technocratic than their pseudo-Christian counterparts. In fact, the concept of technocratic governance originated with the Enlightenment rationalism of August Comte, who would inspire the sociopolitical Utopians of the left. Ian Dowbiggin states:

Twentieth-century liberals’ statist and corporatist bent, as well as their confidence in reform, government interventionism, and technocratic elites, can be traced back to the Comtean tradition of the previous century. (11)

Such technocratic propensities are easily detectable within the left-wing rhetoric of secular progressives like Michelle Goldberg. In her book, Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism, Goldberg correctly identifies some of the technocratic features of the CNP and Dominionism. However, she uses these aberrations as an opportunity to malign all Christians. Worse still, the only alternative that Goldberg offers is her own left-wing variety of Technocracy. With unabashed technocratic hubris, Goldberg declares: "Experts accept evolution as something very close to fact, but Americans never have" (93). Of course, the inference is that so-called "experts" must act as the arbiters of consensus reality. According to Goldberg, Darwinism is a fact because the anointed "experts" of institutionally accredited science deem it so. Goldberg’s priesthood of "experts" constitutes an epistemological cartel. It comes as little surprise that the ecclesiastical authorities of this scientistic theocracy would choose Darwinism as the official state sanctioned religion. After all, it was Darwin’s Gnostic myth that provided the scientific foundation for both communism and fascism, which are ideological kissing cousins of Goldberg’s beloved political left.

Goldberg’s statements betray the secular progressive’s proclivities toward the Wellsian concept of a democracy of "experts." In The Open Conspiracy, H.G. Wells openly endorsed the formation of a one-world socialist totalitarian government. The only form of democracy practiced within such a global government would be a parliamentary system reserved for a so-called "cognitive elite." Commenting on such a democracy, Wells states:

The world’s political organization will be democratic, that is to say, the government and direction of affairs will be in immediate touch with and responsive to the general thought of the educated whole population. (26)

Literary critic and author W. Warren Wagar comments on this statement:

Read carefully. He did not say the world government would be elected by the people, or that it would even be responsive to the people--just to those who were "educated." (Wells 26)

In truth, the concept of a "democracy of experts," or a Technocracy, was spawned by the anti-Christian Enlightenment. Secular progressives like Goldberg and Chris Hedges characterize their pseudo-Christian opposition as a "war against the Enlightenment." However, many of the technocratic elements of the Enlightenment are present within the Evangelical movement, which has been successfully co-opted an controlled by factions of the power elite.

In the eleventh installment of this ongoing investigation, we shall examine the seduction of the Evangelical movement by neoconservativism, which is merely the latest incarnation of the technocratic Enlightenment.

Sources Cited

All sources will be presented in the twelfth and final installment of this series.

VISIT MY WEBSITE:

STEVE MCHENRY'S BLOG

Family Christian Stores


Amazon Unbox


Survivor Mall

The UFO Store

Fingerhut



LinkShare

Firefox 2

BlogTalkRadio

Dara's Website


FeedBurner
Syndicate your Blog or Podcast with FeedBurner


Check me out!

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


Share/Save/Bookmark
Post a Comment