This was a remarkably sober analysis from Evangelical Focus
though its conclusions are (as expected) ultimately false. The Lausanne
oriented movement is concerned not with truth speaking to power but power
itself and the unbiblical quest to redeem culture. That said, the editors
possess enough sense to realise that current trends at work within
Evangelicalism risk destroying the movement and thus their cultural mission. A
New Testament based analysis will lead to a totally different trajectory but
that doesn't mean that the article has no value.
The so-called Reset, a notion that seems to have emerged from
the context of the Davos-based World Economic Forum (WEF) has generated considerable
alarm in Right-wing circles. The Evangelical Focus article attempts to downplay
the viability of the WEF pointing out (rightly) that the organisation wields no
direct political power. This is true enough and while Right-wing alarmism can
and ought to be dismissed, at the same time I would not simply discount an
organisation like the WEF. Such forums are among the key mechanisms utilised by
cultural and political elites to not merely discuss issues and goals but to blueprint
plans for implementation. The way in which organisations like the WEF project
power is not through direct political control or legislation but through
planning, networking, and influence.
Right-wing thinking is deeply rooted in nationalism and as such
any attempt at global planning or anything that smacks of internationalism is
immediately viewed as suspicious if not threatening. Right-wing Libertarianism
is pro-capitalist and while most contemporary Right-wing thinkers also embrace
that economic school in the broad strokes, their zeal for it is usually
tempered by nationalist concerns. Libertarianism's commitment to free markets
is often in defiance of nationalism but the economic school remains sceptical
of any kind of trans-national coordination or regulation and thus they are
often hostile to the likes of the Davos WEF – even though at heart the Davos
crowd is devoted to the promotion of capitalism and is but one of several such
organisations dominated by the titans of the global economy – capitalists all.
For years we've been told that organisations such as the
United Nations, the G7, and the World Trade Organisation (WTO) represent
existential threats to the nation state and national sovereignty.
Those that make these assertions only demonstrate their own
deficient understanding of world affairs and the nature of the global political
order. They've been making these alarmist arguments for decades and for all their
efforts there's no evidence that demonstrates their case. These organisations
make gestures toward internationalism but they have repeatedly been
demonstrated to be empty, impotent, and even disingenuous. National sovereignty
is still robust, even in the EU which was (by design) meant to subsume national
sovereignty. The organisation struggles to rein in dissident states – such as
Hungary and Poland which continue to flout orders from Brussels and of course
there's the United Kingdom which abandoned the union altogether.
These organisations (such was the WEF) also regularly speak
of economic reform and a need to re-tool the capitalist order for the new
decade, century or whatever the present hour demands. Once again, after decades
we find these to be empty words and phrases, impotent gestures meant to placate
target audiences and that play well on news bulletins.
In every case the monied interests are able to triumph and
find workarounds – evading the very reforms being presented. And sometimes the
'reforms' are really a smokescreen for consolidation, but that's another topic
for another time.
There are genuine concerns that some would sincerely address.
The present order is on a trajectory the risks destruction of the Earth's environment,
the waste of resources, and such a massive concentration of wealth that the
exacerbation of poverty represents not only in a moral but even a practical
risk. It's one thing to dominate society but if that society becomes unstable
even the rich begin to fear. Countries like Brazil and South Africa already
live this reality – the super-rich living in compounds with private security
and armoured vehicles which whisk them from one exclusive neighbourhood or
shopping venue to the other. It's not sustainable as such societies are primed
for revolution.
And so rather than bring about great sweeping and systemic
reforms, the elites in these forums argue for scenarios in which crumbs can be
thrown to the poor – to keep them going, and grant some hope. In other words,
to buy time until the next big 'shift' takes place. It's not really out of
concern for them but for the maintenance and perpetuation of the present
system. The political leaders may give impassioned speeches but they know why
they are there – and who put them there. They also know these same forces can
(and sometimes do) quickly bring them down when they reach too far or push too
vigorously for reform.
Others at WEF meetings are concerned that the new economy
hasn't been properly reckoned with. Regulation and the tax code haven't been
made current and are at present incapable of properly interacting with today's
economic realities and the technologies they rest upon.
Contrary to popular libertarian narratives, big business and the
markets actually want regulation – they want parameters and lines of operation
that can be worked. They want to know what the boundaries are and most of all
they want stability. In that framework they can work and even rig the system.
Many intellectuals, political figures, and those associated
with the business world realise that the present order cannot go on as it
currently stands. There is an inherent instability in place and this continues
to generate the very risk that markets abhor.
Libertarians seek to provide counter-narratives that suggest
boundless economic prosperity, that the capitalist order continues to bring
this to the wider world and there is also in their rhetoric a consistent rejection
of zero sum economics. They continue to maintain that technologies can solve
the problems with resources, population and the like. The problem they insist
is government and if it would just get out of the way, the world would
experience freedom and economic flourishing.
It sounds good and looks good on paper but it doesn't match
the historical record or decades of analysis on the part of economic and
political science. The two are necessarily related (even inseparable) and the
libertarian failure to grasp this reveals their ideology to be the
quintessential example of Ivory Tower-ism – theory divorced from reality. In
addition there are data driven reasons to question this narrative, let alone
the moral and theological implications of such a view – which seems to deny the
affects of the Fall on both humanity and this world.
Contrary to their arguments there are limitations. On the
most practical level these come in the form of resources. You will commonly
hear puerile arguments about populations that can fit in land areas – the world
could fit into Texas or something juvenile along those lines. While this may be
childish and even fantastic it's by no means quaint. Rather it's dangerous as
it does not address real problems with basic resources such as air, food, fuel
or questions of weather, soil, energy, and the like.
One cannot help but be reminded of the 2013 film Elysium in which the wealthy live in an
off-world bubble as it were – wholly divorced from the chaos and suffering
their lifestyle is built upon. This sort of thinking leads to revolutions and
thus either their libertarian dream is toppled and falls to the guillotine or
it falls because in order to maintain the status quo, they abandon their
principles and erect a massive state security apparatus that necessarily
curtails freedoms and comes to view key sectors of its economy as strategic and
thus are required to work in concert with government – something akin to what
we have now in America and the West in general.
The so-called Reset that's generating all this hype and fear
is not a call to revolution. On the contrary, it's meant to preserve and
perpetuate the present order. It's reform and that's a far cry from revolution.
Figures like George Soros continue to be misunderstood.
Painted as a globalist conspiracist – a 'billionaire agent of communism' – the
sad and deceived people who make these arguments clearly don't know what
they're talking about. There's no shame in admitting that one doesn't
understand how things work. The world is complicated. But the shame comes when
one continues to speak loudly and act in ignorance.
Soros in fact is an agent for Western imperialism and has
done much for the cause of Atlanticism – particularly in Eastern Europe. This
is why nationalists like Orban hate him. Orban (who is not a sincere person
either) plays the populist card and allows the media and others to demonise
Soros because it's convenient. Soros does actually represent subversive powers
but the power he represents is that of the Atlanticist West – the Enlightenment
West that would (if granted the chance) overthrow traditional orders, subject
nations not to communism but to market capital.
It won't abolish the national order but instead buys it and controls it – as is
the case in the United States.
The debate is really over nationalist and internationalist
forms of capitalism. The latter will simply insist the international model is
inevitable, efficient, and ultimately preferable. Socialism isn't even on the table.
Social Democracy and Third Way economics and politics are but revisions of
capitalism that seek to foster stability. They have different visions and
different degrees of scope but the contenders and factions are actually much
closer than people realise. What we're witnessing is a civil war within the
halls of elitist capitalism and nothing more.
Should we as Christians be concerned with some of the trends
at work in terms of economics, technology, and censorship? Yes, we should but
the alarmism that's being promoted is not warranted and its disingenuous nature
is fully on display with the kind of McCarthyism and Red-Baiting that's taking
place – ironically both political factions have fallen into this on different
levels.
Additionally the tragic but real politicisation of Covid-19
has amplified these fears. The pandemic has certainly been mismanaged and
exploited by some but the notion that Marxism will arrive through elitists
wielding the legislative pen – is not worthy of any serious consideration. The
people arguing thus only demonstrate their own ignorance.
Covid-19 is going to have repercussions for many years to
come. We're already getting a hint of this in some of the industrial and
commercial sectors. 2021 is not going to be a year of recovery, that much is
clear. The retail, wholesale, and construction industries are in a state of
disarray and the full scope of the economic fallout isn't clear. Consider this
– the litigation hasn't even started yet. Businesses that have taken a hit in
terms of profits are going to start feeling some real pain when the lawsuits
start piling on. Companies that did not follow government mandates and were
criminally negligent in providing workplace safety are going to face litigation
from families of dead employees and from the insurance industry which even now
is bracing for the onslaught. I expect it to get very ugly. And tragically
there are 'Christian' ambulance chasers that will get in on the act.
But the greatest alarm arises when I consider the
conspiratorial angle being promoted by Right wing outlets that in some cases
have direct connection to churches. I'm looking at the rhetoric coming out from
organisations like the Heartland Institute and when I consider the influence
that think-tank (and many corporate mouthpieces like it) has on the Evangelical
community – I tremble. The mis- and dis-information flowing from airwaves and
pulpits is only going to increase. We haven't seen anything yet.
I also think it's deplorable and hypocritical that
congressional leaders were calling for the curtailing of social media and tech
companies only to switch gears and back off these tech giants in order to
target the Mercer-connected Parler on the basis of its role in the January 6
Capitol attack. This ignored the fact that outlets like YouTube, Twitter, and
Facebook played an even larger role in providing the social media platforms for
these insurrectionists. It demonstrates either cowardice on the part of the
Biden-DNC faction to take on these economic titans or it reveals their
corruption. As opposed to Parler, the larger firms attempted some kind of
tagging, moderation, and even censorship but overall it must be said that
social media in general has proven to be an absolutely destructive force. If government
takes down these corporations or breaks them up – I will certainly not protest.
All that said, Parler and the Mercer network are in fact
dangerous and my concern for this larger media-tech network is that it is one
of the most palpable connections between Evangelicals and dangerous Right-wing
forces. Instead of sounding the alarm, I see growing numbers of Christians
flocking to these platforms and news outlets. They have become twenty-first
century mixers - locales in which Christians are able to interact with and
(sadly) find common cause with the extreme Right – Trumpism has created a
common ground or big tent for all of these movements and forces. The Mainstream
media is deceptive but these solutions are no solutions at all – and do nothing
to further the cause of truth.
The Great Reset is an exaggeration and yet there's another
Great Reset taking place within the Republican Party, the Christian Right and
the larger Evangelical sphere. This reset is actually (from a Christian
perspective) cause for much greater concern.