Understand Conservatism

Sometimes a basic term is misunderstood because everyone assumes its meaning is clear.

Conservatism at root is the desire to conserve the existing order. It’s a natural instinct. “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

Conservatism as a movement arises when the existing order is attacked by revolutionaries. The revolutionaries believe the old ideas are false and unjust and must be replaced. The conservative knows the existing order is good and tries to protect it.

The American conservative movement became potent in the postwar period. At that time the existing order was being attacked by liberal and leftist revolutionaries. The superstructure of the American order was basically sound although its religious, philosophical and social foundations had been severely weakened. At that time, mainstream American conservatism was about the business of protecting an existing order that was outwardly healthy because its visible structure still reflected traditional ways and beliefs.

Some visionaries understood that the foundation was weak and they called for it to be strengthened. They were mostly ignored. To switch metaphors: heart surgery is dangerous, only to be undertaken when the patient is in imminent danger, and most conservatives believed the patient had only a superficial injury.

The revolutionaries were able to overthrow the old order because of the weakness of its foundations. They have taken control. They are establishing a new order based on revolutionary principles: DIE, BLM, CRT, LGBTQ+,…  They do not have total control yet, and counter-revolution is still possible, but the hour is late.

Since the existing order is now revolutionary, the conservative instinct is now to preserve the revolution. That is the fatal flaw of mainstream conservatism: thinking that the existing revolutionary order is good just because it is the existing order. Mainstream conservatism only opposes “extremist” revolution. It supports mainstream, establishment revolution: moderate amounts of feminism, atheism, globalism, immigration, affirmative action, and so on. Mainstream conservatism sometimes makes good-sounding promises, but it does not deliver what is needed.

Within living memory mainstream conservatism opposed the revolution. Conservatives can still be honorable if they work to re-establish the good ways of the old order.

Clarifying the Protestant-Biblical Doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone

Christianity is under attack. It has always been so but the attack has ramped up in recent years. It is more important than ever for Christians to be strong in their faith.

Christians should know general apologetics, that is, the reasons why Christianity is true. But they must also know the tenets of the tradition to which they belong. Only then can they stand firm against the world, the flesh and the Devil.

The Orthosphere is ecumenical but members are allowed to express their beliefs. I express Protestant beliefs. Others can express their beliefs.

Roosh has a post titled What is Orthodox Christianity? In it, he objects to what he calls “the Protestant notion of ‘faith alone.’ “

He does not seem to understand the actual doctrine, which is justification by faith alone. And he’s not the only one. Clarification is needed.

I call it a Protestant-Biblical doctrine because it was not invented. It is expressed clearly in Scripture as I show below, although other Christian traditions find reasons to disagree.

I do not expect non-Protestants to know our doctrines. But many Protestants also do not know this crucial teaching. Perhaps this post will help them understand.

The Floggings Will Continue Until Moral(ity) Improves

Since the current Woke System of the World does not work, catastrophes will continue. They are inevitable.

Mankind must be pummeled until it rejects wokeness. It will evidently take a lot of pummeling to bring healing.

It is true that mankind often took a fearsome pummeling in the pre-woke age. But there’s just one thing. Under Wokeness, mankind pummels itself with entirely avoidable floggings: crush your religion, shackle your police, persecute and / or hamstring your best people, deliberately destroy knowledge. Etc. Mankind will continue to inflict easily-avoided self-pummelings until the morality improves.

Wokeness is about morality, but morality proceeds from metaphysics. Metaphysics refers to one’s understanding of the basic nature of reality. Bad metaphysics, bad morality. Bad morality, many self-inflicted catastrophes.

That is why the floggings will continue until morality improves. Q.E.D.

The Blue Guards

Much has been made of this video of woke high school students “decolonizing” their school library.

In other words, throwing non-woke books in the trash.

Mao had his Red Guards, the Empire of Wokeness has its Blue Guards.

*

(A websearch reveals a number of actual police and paramilitary units named “Blue Guards.” Temporarily ignore them.)

“Look on My Wokes, ye Mighty, and Despair!” or Brothers, Don’t Lose Hope

N.S Lyons has a Substack article No, the Revolution Isn’t Over, subtitled None of the fundamental drivers of “Wokeness” have relented. It’s a masterful presentation of the basic facts that explain our dire conditions.

Almost everything he say is correct and important. But the situation is not quite as hopeless as one would think from reading Lyons. There are always reasons for a guarded anti-pessimism. (“Optimism” may be too strong a word.) Since Lyons’s outline of wokeness is useful I quote his section headings, summarize his points, and then give reasons why it’s not quite as hopeless as it first appears.

*

1. One does not simply walk away from religious beliefs.

Lyons correctly says that Wokeness is a religion in the sense of providing metaphysical principles to order human life. It is based on a simplistic dualism of Good and Evil and rather than being a new invention, Wokeism is deeply connected to the tradition of Western religion and philosophy stretching back thousands of years. Lyons does not develop his opening assertion that one does not simply walk away from religion but if wokeness is an organic development of our civilization, it is not easily rejected.

I add that since Wokeism is egregiously absurd and wicked, no society ordered by it can survive long. Wokeism can do a lot of damage before we discard it but it will eventually be discarded because it doesn’t work.

It is said that you cannot fight something with “nothing,” meaning that you cannot rally the people by condemning evil and nothing more. But the absurd wickedness of Wokeness will eventually break its spell over mankind, leaving the way clear for sane religion to be noticed by the masses.

ApologetiX: Repurposing Classic Rock Performances for the Glory of God (or at Least the Enjoyment of Some Christians)

There’s a Christian band named ApologetiX. They started in the 90’s. Their thing is recreating classic rock recordings, but overlaid with Christian lyrics that tell a new story.

I first encountered them about fifteen years ago when I heard (on the radio, I think), their song Triune Godhead. They recreate the Stones’ classic Satisfaction, but with words that cite Scripture and make an argument for the Trinity of God.

They match the musical arrangement and the energy of the original. The concept may sound dubious, but they pull it off. Give it a listen.

(If you don’t know the recording they’re repurposing, it’s here. Satisfaction was the number one pop song in the world during 1965, or so I’ve been told. Otis Redding’s cover also deserves honorable mention.)

In this, the first of their songs that I heard, they achieve the purpose of their name. This is apologetics for the divinity of Christ and the Trinity of God.

Wintery Knight (Probably) Spiked This Pro-Calvinistic-Predestination Comment of Mine at His Blog

Prolific Christian blogger Wintery Knight has a recent post commenting on a discussion-format debate featuring William Lane Craig and Paul Helm on Calvinism vs Molinism as rival ways to understand what the Bible teaches about predestination. Calvinism takes at face value biblical statements on God predestining; Molinism (at least as interpreted by Craig) speculates that God knows how each person would voluntarily behave in all possible situations and then God chose to create the unique world that maximizes the good that results from free choices. God solved, as it were, the Mother of All Optimization Problems.

Paul Helm supported the Calvinistic understanding of predestination

Wintery Knight is evidently an anti-Calvinist; replying to a reader comment he wrote

Yes I think it’s important for people to understand what Calvinism teaches. I’m sure there are nice Calvinists, but it’s gotta lot of trouble with the plain meaning of the Bible.

That phrase “the plain meaning of the Bible” inspired me to attempt to post the below comment. But it never went through. Possibly there was an electronic malfunction. Or else WK did not want to get into a discussion on the plain meaning of the Bible.

William Lane Craig claims to believe in predestination and to support Molinism because he believes it is the best way to affirm the biblical texts on predestination while acquitting God of the charge of causing evil. But most non-Cavinists simply reject predestination. What Wintery Knight’s exact position on predestination is, I don’t know. I just know he’s anti-Calvinist and he has no objection to Craig’s Molinism. For that reason my comment dealt not with Molinism (which is highly technical), but with the “plain meaning of the Bible” regarding predestination.

Here is my comment:

1 Timothy 2:3-4 “This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

versus

Romans 9:18  “So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.”

and

Ephesians 1:11 “In Him we also have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things in accordance with the plan of His will…”

So which is it? Does God want everyone to be saved, or does he plan it all in advance?

The Bible says both. So is the Bible contradicting itself, or is there a deeper meaning?

The Bible does not contradict itself. There is a deeper meaning. Or rather, more work is needed in order to understand what the Bible teaches on this topic.

What does it Mean that Christians and Other People of Good Will must Hack the [Political] System? We must Vote Not in Order to Support the System, but as one Defensive Tactic Among Many.

In my previous post I said our side should hack the political system, not withdraw from politics as some on our side (many of whom are Christians) counsel.

The political system is hostile to us but still capable on occasion of producing outcomes beneficial to us. And the withdrawal of people of good will from politics only makes it easier for our Opponent to torment us. We must wisely apply political force where it is likely to do us good and not be misled by foolish idealism of either the anti- or pro-politics type.

The present counsel refers primarily to voting, although obviously voting does no good unless there is a candidate who is a person of good will, and governing does no good unless done by people of good will. But the vast majority of us will not hold office. We will only vote.

To “hack” the political system, then, is to view voting not as a civic duty, but as one means among many of defending ourselves. Politics as civic duty dates from the old days, when America functioned reasonably well regardless of who occupied governmental office. In those days the election of a bad party or politician was never a catastrophe, and it made sense to vote for a questionable candidate as long as his party was, in the long run, better for America than the other party.

But now all of official America is committed to destruction. To vote with the goal of supporting the existing order is to cooperate with destruction.

Instead, we must vote with the goal of protecting ourselves. And if no candidate is likely to protect us, don’t vote. That’s the way our Opponent votes, and he has been successful so far.

Politics is an Emotional Subject that Mesmerizes Some and causes Others to Give Up in Disgust and Miss Opportunities to Do Good by Hacking the System

This is my third post on how Christians (and other persons of good will) should view politics. The other posts are here and here.

My theme is that those who call for a boycott of politics are mistaken. The political process can still sometimes do us good but we must have discernment because our Opponent has overall control of the System. Instead of being loyal to the political system (one of the marks of a Good Citizen, according to traditional American thought), we should hack the system. Since the System is generally run so as to do us harm, but our Opponent does not control all details, and since political processes often do us either harm or good, we must wisely use the System to our advantage when possible. Withdrawing entirely from politics, as some advocate, is misguided. It is unilateral surrender.

Our Opponent has overall control, but not total control. Therefore it is still possible on occasion to love your neighbor (in the Christian sense) through politics.

But many people cannot bring themselves to vote unless they believe there is a candidates who is unambiguously a good person or a party which unambiguously does good. (Our opponents, in contrast, define a politician as unambiguously good if he endorses Wokeism, regardless of his character.) Many of our people cannot vote for a candidate who would be a much better officeholder than his opponent but who has serious flaws. Casting such a vote is commonly called “supporting the lesser of two evils,” and is generally condemned by Christians as being “worldly.”

Diversity, Inclusion and Equity: a Quick Primer on the Latest False Religion and How to Correct it.

The latest mainstream false religion is based on a few fundamental principles. They support the entire thing.

In truth there is just one Fundamental Principle: Destruction. The current mainstream is devoted to Destruction. Consider, as just one of many examples, the wokeling’s slogan “Change the World.” Changing a thing, especially a society, destroys it. It is replaced with something different.

Bruce Charlton has said essentially the same thing, identifying the fundamental principle as Evil.

But Destruction and Evil have a bad public image. Subsidiary principles are needed for public consumption. The fundamental principles that get all the publicity right now are Equity, Inclusion and Diversity, in that logical order.