If I understand it correctly, it is the Attorney General that decides
which organizations are subversive. The President of the United States
appoints the Attorney General. If the President of the United States,
and a substantial number of his appointees, were members of a subversive
organization, it is unlikely that the Attorney General would classify
the organization as subversive. This is a dilemma. To make matters
worse, it is the President that is commander and chief of our Armed
Forces. That the Commander and Chief of our Armed Forces is a member of
a subversive organization is very dangerous to our Constitutional
Democratic Federation.
The religious righters, especially the Dominionist, are closely aligned
with, and controlled by the Neoconservatives. Below is an excerpt from
an article to which I provide a link towards the bottom of this post.
When reading the article, be sure and click on the link at the bottom of
part 1 of the article, that will carry you to part 2 of the article.
#---------------------------------------------------
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 (Leslie, no
pagination). 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 (No pagination). 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to engage in politics at all following the Scopes trial has been
replaced by a call for Christian "dominion" over the nation and,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. (No pagination)
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. (No pagination)
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. (No pagination)
Heubeck goes on to say that the Dominionists "will use guerrilla tactics
to undermine the legitimacy of the dominant regime" (No pagination).
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.
#--------------------------------------------
Here is another excerpt from part 2 of the article:
#-------------------------------------------
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 reveals 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.
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 reveals 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.
#-----------------------------------------------
Here is the link to part 1 of the article:
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Commentary/CNP_Dominionism.htm
or
http://tinyurl.com/2vt262
#-------------------------------------------------
Regards,
LelandJ
Pete Theisen wrote:
> On Saturday 17 March 2007 7:05 pm, Leland F. Jackson, CPA wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> The list could go on and on
>>
>
> Hi Leland!
>
> The list has gone on and on over and over again for several years now. Don't
> you get tired of beating the same old dead horse?
>
>
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
