Author: jetbrane

I had a family member send me this link this morning, asking me to analyze this. The article is longish and I will take this in several bites. The article provides a good example of how someone who is part of the Cultural Marxist academic elite have been taught to “think.”

http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/conservatism.html

————————————

Q: What is conservatism?

A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

Say’s who? Where did this definition come from? Would conservatives recognize this definition of conservatism? I think not.

The definition poisons the well since Americans have always been averse to being dominated by anybody.

Second, the whole intent behind the Constitution was to create a Republic that was one part Monarchy (Executive Branch), one part Democracy, (The House of Representatives) and one part Aristocracy (The US Senate). In that arrangement the Aristocracy, originally was to be a Aristocracy not of the Nation as a whole but of the individual States as the State Houses were responsible to elect Senators. The idea in this arrangement is that no of the people who had their interests in any of the classes (Democratic, Aristocratic, Monarch) would be able to dominate the other since all their interests were represented.

The Constitution was, in its original intent, a conservative document and to suggest our National Document, which emphasized State’s Rights (i.e. 9th & 10th amendments) which clearly opposed any kind of Domination by a ruling class is just ridiculous.

What is hilarious about this article’s definition is that it is a definition of Communism and other forms of tyranny. In Communism and Tyrannical Governments you have Domination by a Aristocracy. You have a small coterie of people who are dominating society. For Pete’s sake this definition is a perfect description of rule under Stalin, Mao, Castro, Hitler, Obama, Bush etc.

Whoever wrote this was a loon. Conservatism has always been against domination by anybody preferring instead to create a society where Harmony of interests are pursued.

Q: What is wrong with conservatism?

A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.

Praise God it is incompatible w/ Democracy. Democracy is straight from the pits of hell and is merely a synonym for “socialism.” Democracy is three wolves and two sheep voting on what is for supper. I pray every day that Democracy would be vanquished from the earth. This country was started as a Republic and not a Democracy.

In terms of of it being incompatible with prosperity or civilization in general, I must again ask what Weed this person is smoking? It has always been the Conservative impulse that has built great civilizations, and provided prosperity. Liberalism, to the contrary is a parasite that can only exist off the prosperity that the Conservative impulse provides. If Liberalism ever succeeds in killing the Conservative impulse civilization will go into complete eclipse and prosperity will be forever surrendered. Of course, liberals will insist that when that happens that dark night and old chaos will be the very definition of Civilization and Prosperity.

Second, in the Q. & A. above note that the chief substantial complaint is that Conservatism is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice. Here the author of this twaddle merely reveals that they are a some form of Jacobin, Cultural Marxist who thinks the very apex of civilization is where all the God given distinction (inequality) between men has been erased. The author of this twaddle desires a society and social order where it is required that nobody excel beyond somebody else because that would be “unequal” and to recognize such talent would be “prejudice.” In this person’s view the evil of “Conservatism” is found in the reality that it recognizes God placed distinctions and hierarchy. This kind of thinking will not be pleased until there is no difference between Men and Women, Parents and Children, Human’s and beasts, God and the Devil.

Government schools have decided to go on a anti-bullying campaign to protect GLBT types. Why stop there? I think they should have some anti-bullying signs also to protect people who like to cozy up to farm animals. The persecution people can get from doing that is just terrible. Also, anti-bullying signs that protect people who like to cozy up to dead bodies is probably needed as well. I know I hate it when people are judgmental against people who like to cozy up to dead bodies.

Faulting those who communicate strong disapproval of homosexuals is a classic example of how people measure love in a quite shallow fashion. We are told it is mean and not nice to be strongly disappoving towards the wicked and so we get the state going on what they call “anti-bullying” campaigns.

But is it really true that societal disapproval is unloving?

Is it loving to show acceptance and tolerance for the wicked? To show this kind of tolerance towards the reprobate, I would contend, is an example of the Proverbs where it says that, “The tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.”

Is it really loving to the perverts in question to allow them to go on in their sin unchallenged? Would it not be mercy to them if they realized that their perversion couldn’t be practiced and flaunted unrestricted in open due to the social ostracization that they would experience? To deride their perversion, would make the practice of their perversion that much more difficult.

But let’s extend this and ask about the issue of love as it pertains to other people who are part of the societal equation besides the perverts.

Is it loving towards third party observers who might be swept up into the perverts lifestyle if the lifestyle of perverts is not disapproved of in the strongest terms? Are we being loving to those, who might otherwise not have themselves become perverts, if the perverts had met strong disapproval thus being forced back into the closet? I would contend that it is hateful towards those who might otherwise be tempted towards perversion to allow perversion to NOT be rebuked in strong terms.

What about society as a whole. If we do not speak adamantly against the behavior of the wicked we are creating a climate of acceptability of perversion in society. Societal Taboos are normally upheld by members of society, who by their disapproval are not tolerating violation of the accepted tabbos. Societal disapproval of perverse behavior is a healthy functioning of societies auto-immune system as it seeks to suppress societal infection.

Finally, is a lack of pointed disapproval loving towards God? Scripture tells us to “Hate that which is evil.” Is not disapproval, sometimes to the point of derision, a “hating that which is evil?” Did we not see Elijah on Mt. Carmel deride mock the servants of Baal to the glory of God? Was Elijah wrong for his derision? Was Elijah being being and unkind?

The pursuit of forcing mouths to be shut in the current Statist anti-bullying program that would otherwise express revulsion at perversion is merely the ongoing attempt by the Pagan state to seek to normalize perversion and to force the citizenry to accept perverse behavior.

“It is our duty, as far as lies in our power, immediately to organize human society and all its institutions and organs upon a distinctively Christian basis. Indifference or impartiality here between the law of the kingdom and the law of the world, or of its prince, the devil, is utter treason to the King of Righteousness. The Bible, the great statute-book of the Kingdom, explicitly lays down principles which, when candidly applied, will regulate the action of every human being in all relations. There can be no compromise. The King said, with regard to all descriptions of moral agents in all spheres of activity, “He that is not with me is against me.” If the national life in general is organized upon non-Christian principles, the churches which are embraced within the universal assimilating power of that nation will not long be able to preserve their integrity.

~ A. A. Hodge,
Evangelical Theology, 283-84.

If R2K “theology” is successful one result will be a sense of relief among those who advocate missionary Humanism. The advocates of hegemonic Liberalism are content with a religion that is privatized to the Church realm. Missionary Humanism does not care if the American Church elects itself to privatize the Church’s Christian voice to a realm of Redemption. Shoot, Missionary Humanism is content even if American law does not directly outlaw all private religious speech and exercise for the same reason. In both cases Missionary Humanism understands that the exclusion of Christian theological reference in the broader culture, whether brought about by the self-censorship of the Church or brought about by Legislation forbidding the Christian faith from probing into the public square, works to insulate the public square and civic discourse from a Christian theological frame of reference that, if free to walk in the public square and affect civic discourse, would train the broader community to forswear agnostic mental habits.

Conversely, when the Church self censors itself so that it does not allow itself to speak to the public square, or if the Church would be legislated out of the public square the effect would be to safely train the wider community into a pagan worldview. A second effect of sealing off the voice of the Christian Church from the public square is to create a de-Christianized social eco-system which would lead to the Christian faithful themselves to gradually doubt the objective truth or public relevance of their marginalized Christian beliefs — due to the persistent, subliminal effect of the given a-priori’s of the social eco-system in which they are embedded. If the dominant, persistent social practice of the wider community is anti-Christian the impact inevitably will be to peel away confidence in the Christian faith in private and redemptive realms.

Such a tamed religious community is no longer a threat to the liberal secular order or to the plans of hegemony of Missionary Humanism.