I’m fond of pointing out that Progressivism is no longer–if it ever was–a political ideology, and is in fact a fanatical Death Cult which manifests as a heresy and mockery of Christianity.
Some have asked exactly what the Death Cult’s relationship to Christianity is and how it broke off from the Church like a tumor whose cancerous growth continued after it was excised. Kind of like the antagonist from the Stephen King-George Romero movie The Dark Half, the Death Cult is Christianity’s undead evil twin.
Like all heresies, Liberalism–the foundational creed of Progressivism–starts with an orthodox teaching. In this case, that teaching is each man’s creation in the image and likeness of God.
The Liberal takes the doctrine of man’s creation in the imago Dei and pushes it to an extreme. Not only, says the Liberal, do all people have great dignity due to the fact that they bear God’s image, they all have equal dignity. Stripped of any logical limits, the Liberal compounds his error by embracing the absurd notion that all people are equal in all ways.
This error is egalitarianism, Liberalism’s inseparable companion.
The problem is that God is not egalitarian. Men derive their value from Him, but that value is not equal, much less infinite.
Note to binary thinkers mired in egalitarianism: the self-evident observation that all people are not equal is not to deny that they all have great value. We are all commanded to love our neighbor, not just as ourselves, but as Christ has loved us. Sinning against the least of God’s children is a sin because it does violence to the divine image he bears.
Note, though, that God repeatedly and clearly affirms that there is such a thing as the least of His children. So much for equality.
God likes hierarchies. He also likes every place in every hierarchy to be filled. Taking its lead from Him, the nature of which He is God abhors a vacuum. Just look at the periodic table.
No two people are entirely equal in ability or even holiness. I don’t care how much you give to the poor or how many prayers you say, you’re not as holy as the Blessed Theotokos.
Egalitarianism finds itself in direct contradiction to this truth–and thus THE Truth, so the egalitarian project must systematically attempt to destroy truth in order to resolve the paradox. But that’s impossible, so we wind up with men dominating in female sports.
Nor are sporting events the only casualties. Since accepting any limits on equality or self-indulgence would necessarily destroy egalitarianism and Liberalism, they are both totalitarian. Anyone who would gainsay them must be destroyed. This is why Progressivism is a Death Cult.
The engine of Progressivism, as a wise man said, is violent magical thinking.
And because heresies err in what they deny–that being the sovereign goodness of God in this instance–only reasserting Christian orthodoxy can correct these unbalanced errors and restore sanity.
Although there are other forms of it, one of the most prominent forms of egalitarianism these days is racial egalitarianism: All races are equal in all traits and capabilities. The funny thing about this is that the gap between this belief and the real world is so glaring that even "conservatives" who believe this, if pressed, will often end up at the position of "All races are equal, but whites are uniquely bad." I've pushed someone to it myself.
I like to ask white Boomers how their nearest high school basketball team is doing this season.
Was the person who averred that "Whites are Uniquely Bad" in any way melanin-challenged?
It was online, so there was no way for me to really know. "On the internet, no one knows you're actually a dog" after all.
To give some context, we were arguing over differences in behavior and average intelligence. Evidence appears to demonstrate that people of African descent, on average, have lower average IQs and are also more prone to anti-social violence than white people.
He ended up asserting that whites and blacks are exactly the same, except that as far as he knew, blacks had not produced a Hitler or a Stalin. When I pointed out that he was effectively saying whites are somehow uniquely bad, he disclaimed the obvious implications of his words, but there you are.
It was on Mr. Wright's blog several months ago. It seems in poor taste, however, to publicly name the other person involved, even if only by his internet name.
His schtick is Knowing All World History, though, with no evident regional bias, so he's not your traditional non-white racist. But the Hitler and Stalin thing is what he said. I can attest.
(I've also been at Zaklog's throat on this topic, chiefly because he uses this to write people off as irredeemable based on racial statistics alone. I cannot and never will support this.)
(He does have an unwonted hatred for the English, though.)
chiefly because he uses this to write people off as irredeemable based on racial statistics alone. I cannot and never will support this.
It seems you've either been careless with your choice of words or have badly misunderstood me. I have not and would not call anyone irredeemable on such a basis. That is a theological term, and one which I would be highly reluctant to employ.
My claims are much less sweeping. I say first, that they are not us, that the races are distinct groups, and, frankly, everyone except white people understands this and acts upon this assumption. Second, the groups differ in important ways affecting our behavior, average IQ and propensity for violence being among those differences.
In the end, God will judge each of us based on the choices we made with the options we had. I am not, in the slightest, attempting to claim that judgment seat here.
If we're to kowtow to peer pressure from Everyone Except White People, why not sign on to peer pressure from The Rest Of The Developed World? Hegemony is very likely to come from that quarter, too!
The 21st-century black "understands they are not us and acts upon this assumption" by being told from a tender age that the outside world is gunning for them and the ends justify the means. This, predictably, produces paranoid thugs.
If you inculcate the same in your sons, don't be so complacent as to think their whiteness will shield them from the same results.
Unconcord, you are trying to get rid of a basic feature of human nature. It's not just blacks in America. It's not just blacks. In-group preference is normal. Everyone has it. White people, who are constantly accused of being racist, have it less than everyone else.
And the idea that I'm going to make two white boys just like an average inner-city black boy by telling them that they're probably safer around their own kind is ridiculous. First of all, they have a father. That's a huge difference right there.
In-group preference is not the primary problem with black culture in America.
If we're to kowtow to peer pressure from Everyone Except White People, why not sign on to peer pressure from The Rest Of The Developed World? Hegemony is very likely to come from that quarter, too!
This isn't a "peer pressure" question. It's a question of strategy. A group acting as a team will consistently defeat a group acting as disparate individuals. White people are being systematically disinherited and destroyed because we refuse to think of ourselves and act as white people.
And a mother. That does help. Especially if she's not pushing the "they will kill you if they can" line as you do in reference to your sons online. "They will kill you if they can" (unless we're actually in the middle of a genocide) has no place in the rearing of a virtuous man.
Team Jesus is the only winning team, and I'll stick to that. Yes, I do think that's mutually exclusive with being taught to hate. Yes, it does by and large mean allying with you anyway. Just… not on this topic, ever.
And if you don't like it, go ahead and blame my defective white genes for predisposing me to treat people as individuals. Can't fight DNA.
Have fun virtue-signalling your people into oblivion. It's okay to be white. Except it's not. That simple, harmless statement elicits rage from our monstrous rulers. Does that mean nothing to you? Do you understand the import of that?
Especially if she's not pushing the "they will kill you if they can" line as you do in reference to your sons online.
Also, I am astounded at the complete lack of charity in your wild misreading of my words. I shouldn't be. I should expect this kind of willfully hostile dishonesty on this subject by this point, but I remain surprised.
Invoking Our Lord's name while lying about another commenter doesn't lend you moral authority, Unconcord. Knock it off.
That was not a lie. He fears for his sons' lives because he believes black people are so hateful they cannot be reasoned with. He has said this many times.
I'm disinclined to accept your reading of Zaklog's heart since you demonstrably misread my warning as an invitation to debate. Drop it.
Brian
A sobering post. However a pointed question how do we mitigate hierarchical abuse from the 'betters' given man's fallen nature?
God likes hierarchy but man abuses it.
xavier
Obligations stem from duties. Failure to fulfill one's duties weakens claims of obligations from those whom one owes duties to.
I was referring to natural hierarchies, but regarding social hierarchies, I'd say they're more a solution to our present ills than a problem. The current crisis is for the most part chaos engendered by a leadership vacuum and pathological aversion to authority.
When authority comes packaged with responsibility, obligations and consequences, the abuses have a tendency to trend towards the minuscule. How many politicians would be have if the punish for bad behavior was worse/greater than it is for the plebs, rather than nonexistent? How many psychopaths would run for office if being a politico required a yearly, public audit of your finances, conversations and how they spend their time?
And just to reiterate to all, authority and power are not ontologically evil. Acton was wrong.
Every act of our current illegitimate ruling class is aimed at evading the consequences of their actions and passing them on to us.
I'm still chewing this over, but I think the major problem is that there is no relational obligation, and indeed for the past 50 years the liberal democracies have become feverish in their hatred of relational obligation and their attempts to erase it. This forms the basis of extreme authoritarianism within our democracy just as it formed the basis of same in, say, Communism.
It is Egalitarian in that it is the logical development of all are equal, all unequalness is evil. hence family is evil, nation is evil, loyalty is evil, since each shining snowflake individual must be assessed on the merits of the moment and nothing else, and this again extends to mean also-not their historical performance, commitment to the group, etc.
The result is a ruling class that has neatly severed from itself all moral, legal and kinship obligations, the latter of which is the foundational obligation and the one most perversely hated.
You nailed it.
What Classical Liberals and Libertarians always miss is that not only does liberalism divorced from the good lead inevitably to tyranny, Liberalism IS tyranny.
The other problem, though, is that you cannot have chivalry without inequality. You cannot say the stronger or more intelligent has some duty to the weaker or less intelligent without first admitting that they are different.
That's why they're trying their damnedest to emasculate young boys.
I think another form of egalitarianism you see a lot today is in the "battle of the sexes." Especially in the media with all the portrayals of "strong female characters" who are just as strong as any man. To the point where we are now calling these type of characters men with boobs.
Which makes me think the end game of all this egalitarian business (at least in regards to the sexes) is the destruction of both the terms male and female, and the propping up of some androgynous future. Because grrrll power!
Exactly. You've just described the destruction of truth in the name of equality.
Note that many Conservatives are prone to a subtler form of the same egalitarianism, viz. paying lip service to differences between the sexes but assuming they stop at the neck.
Tim Gordon mentioned this in his new show, Rules for Retorgrades, how feminism is the plague of the laity, Trad and New Church. Think Nickers can make Trotskyites squirm with questions about Israel and USS Liberty, ask a Conservative about Ephesians 5 and if his wife accedes to his authority. Heck, note how many conservative fathers raise their daughters as sons, as future husbands rather than daughters to be wives.
Amen! The number of Christian husbands who abdicate their headship is at pandemic proportions!
I was inordinately pleased to discover I rated pretty well on Brian's headship/leadership scorecard.
Probably as pleased as I was to learn that my readers are so alpha.
Oh heck, I'm not alpha, I'm a woman. Who happens to have read a lot of great old books.
A man who lacks the courage, or the conviction, to lead in his own home can't possibly lead in the church, or out in the world.
Lest this be mistaken for judgemental sanctimony, let me just say: mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
I re-read Ephesians over lunch today, from start to finish. When I got to the "Finally" at the beginning of the Armor of God passage, I realized that St Paul's instructions about how to arm ourselves for battle is the last part of a logical chain of instructions that begins at Ephesians 4:1: "As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received."
Important insight.
Okay, I’ve been on board with Liberalism being an inversion and heresy of Christianity, but is their a proper vivisection of it’s development and history out there? I know Luther helped this along it, or maybe the Nominalists, but there is gaps in my understanding of how this heresy developed and who were the major players in it.
I don't know all the details, but I agree it would make for a fascinating study.
Durandel
Start with the Sophists then go the Gnostics. From there the Bogomils and the Catars (or Albiganians).
Pay attention to the Catars. They're the radioactive dump that leeched underground and poisoned modern thought via the subsequent buffoonery that appears
xavier
I think the Reformation's embrace of equalitarianism was seriously handbraked by Calvin, even assuming it was championed by Luther, which I am not sure I agree with.
I do think that over the subsequent centuries, the division in and of itself fostered the correct attitude of mutual forbearance that came to be first intellectualized as a universal good rather than a tentative Christian commonality necessarily excluding everyone else, and then retardified as "everyone is the same".
But I am suspicious of strict linear analysis because it assumes we have noticed the One True Feature, and that assumption has to be considered as an assertion. For example, in an alternative history of universal European (Roman) Catholicism, an assumed virtue of "not seeing differences" might just as logically been as prevalent, or again, we can invent reasons why it might even be accelerated, might even compete to be doctrine, and so on.
Whereas a … deep… heresy, the kind that is direct rebellion for evil's sake and producing only evil, has ongoing force rather than a delicate long causal chain:
"5For when we were in the realm of the flesh, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death."
Please note
"7What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not!"
Yet I believe that Good arouses in us an evil that reflects it, due to our part in the rebellion against God.
If "people are of great moral importance yet also different" is a clear expression of good, then the near perfect inversion would be "people are intrinsically disposable and all the same".
The prosecution rests.
The prosecution would like to clarify that it is attacking modernity as being a simple and direct inversion of good, and means no disrespect to the persons or notions of any who own Christ.
@wreckage
What I meant by referring to Luther is not necessarily a doctrine by him, but what his actions did. To even consider equalitarianism as an idea, you have to destroy the idea of proper, ordained hierarchies. The Reformation/Rebellion destroyed in the Christian Mind the idea that hierarchies need to be respected, which lead to hierarchies need to be disbanded, opening a path for equalitarianism to fit into that void.
But Luther has a background in Nominalism, which is why I mused that maybe Luther is just a product of that philosophical school.
@Xavier Were the Cathars really that influential in Western thought? I thought the Dominicans had done a good job disbanding their ideas, while the Crusade and Inquisition purged their ideas. Can you specify why you think their ideas persisted and in who?
@Durandel,
I think there's an irony at play here. Many of the mainline Protestant denominations retain the semblance of hierarchy, but most of them seem to have developed Stage 4 Modernism. Some of them have done so an exta that evangelical Protestants who don't have priests and bishops at all, and retain deacons in a logistical capacity, might look at the mainline Protestants and wonder whose side they're on. I grew up with congregationalist polities and a suspicion of church bureaucracies, but I've congressional polity go badly wrong at least once, so I'm reconsidering the possibilities of hierarchy. In the end, I must aver that God is sovereign, so He can put the right ministers in the right place and time, even if the bureaucracy of a given denomination would rather do something else. Likewise, a congregation free to choose its minister might do so very poorly.
Self-editing. I meant to write "to such an extent that evangelical . . ." and "I've seen congregational polity . . " not "congressional polity." That's a whole other ball of wax.
As a general rule, the congregations I have been part of, the ones that survive over time, do respect hierarchy, it's just not at all a transparent hierarchy to outsiders. And the thing is a functional hierarchy is necessary, natural law and all that. Congregations that abandon it are forced to return to it within a generation.
Part of the reason that I believe equalitarianism to be transient is that it is so extremely dysfunctional, and that in turn requires it to be continually renewed and reinforced.
Even assuming Protestantism to be an error in whatever degree, the survival of families, communities and congregations over centuries can be contrasted to the nearly immediate dissolution of congregations that go full modernist/equalitarian. It stands to reason, if virtue is not only mentally right but physically right, natural law blah blah forgive my ineptitude in phrasing here, that there is a limit to how much can be abandoned before total dysfunction kills the host.
That is a valid point. Even freely associating Baptist congregations have internal structure. It may be rather shallow, with no more than a single pastor, a deacon body, and the body of the church, or it could be a bit more involved, as with Elders, Deacons, a full staff with an internal chain of command, and the congregation, but a Quaker meeting it is not. And, of course, the Baptist churches which are part of a larger group (SBC, BGCT, etc) have that superstructure, even if they are free to break those ties at any time. I don't think congregations should be truly independent. Congratulations need fellowship just like congregants do.
@Durandel
Not overtly influential but the Catars still had a notable impact. Remember many of the local Occitian counts and other aristocrats either embraced it or tolerated it.
It's logical that those influences survived and later evolved to the craziness in later times.
xavier