While I understand the impulse behind the RETVRN movement, I think your post lays out the fundamental flaw. We cannot return to something we don’t even truly understand. Return to the traditional Christianity of centuries ago? Our minds wouldn’t grasp it as they did, our civic sensibilities wouldn’t allow for it.
I think it's a brilliant piece, thank you, even while agreeing (somewhat) with Doctor Hammer's criticisms. I'm tangentially aware of this history through the study of some legal history - specifically western legal history - while in law school, continuing throughout my career lo these last 2.5 decades. There were certainly other, earlier events that I would add in, particularly the growth of a merchant class from as far back as the 1200-1500s. The need for enforcing of promises (the law of contract), the King's courts, the common law, all had a far greater contribution to this than what you've done (again, a gentle criticism - limits of space and thought).
Saying that, I agree with you - you've hit upon a vein here, something important, perhaps even profound.
I'm reminded of a number of other incidents where these things have reared their ugly heads. I was a pilot on a ship off the coast of the Former Republic of Yugoslavia (the FRY, as acronymized it while on deployment) in 1995 when that all was going to complete shit. Neighbors were murdering neighbors, rape camps were established, attempted genocide was going on, etc. And there were no good guys.
The problem with "sectarian" violence is that it doesn't have any possible check on the destruction of The Other. There is no Secular notion of Mercy that is built into Christianity, at least not in the current times.
I don't know what the answer is, but "keep your powder dry" (i.e. stock up on ammo and necessaries) would seem to be prudent advice (always, under any regime not kindly disposed to Me and Mine).
One other, perhaps saving grace, is that the Iron Laws of Economics will eventually assert themselves. You can only print funny money for so long and rob from future Peter to line the pockets of current Paul before it gives up the ghost. I mean to emphasize the possibility fedgov collapsing - and perhaps some new confederation of states may well be a result.
Our fedgov more resembles the idiots in Brussels and at the UN than it does an honest representative government anymore, so there are many, many ways this can all go.
The answer will come with the conflict and unfolding resolution between the purveyors of gay pride/worship of blacks (Kneeling Nancy)/feminism vs. Russians-Chinese-Islam-Hinduism, I would think.
Russia kicked out Pussy Riot and associated NGOs. China kicked out (supposedly) 500K Africans from Guangdong, Hindus maintain a racially oriented caste system and used the British to cause a separation with Islam, Islam enslaves the infidel.
I agree with you that we should think historically and contextually.
Something in me struggles to agree with this piece though. I think there are timeless truths. Doesn’t mean they have to be abstract. (To love God and love your neighbour). Yet I agree with you on the ideological abstraction sperg energy that is around at the moment.
I think a consideration of supernatural good and evil would have helped.
Thank you for a thoroughly enjoyable piece. The part that stood out to me and made me want to jump in was when you mentioned universal truth and then somehow dismissed the concept because from an intellectual perspective this is something that cannot be pinned down and shared by the current smorgasbord of factions and disparate cults made up of scatterbrained monkey people that suffer from historical amnesia.
I disagree. I think that universal truth is in fact the only thing that actually exists. The intellectual ramblings of human beings make everything so complicated by comparison. Just because philosophers throughout history have attempted to mine the depths of their intellects and come up with some kind of clunky social equation that will satisfy the needs of the many doesn't mean that they actually hit the jackpot or even that they got anywhere close to experiencing the oneness of all that is.
And certainly not through the practice of thinking about things. That has never lead to anywhere in particular because by it's nature thinking remains on the surface of life and cannot access the deeper roots from whence the thoughts emerged.
Only through the practice of transcending (and certain drugs) can people access the deeper levels of existence and experience the true nature of life and all that is.
Excellent piece. Thanks. I've long intuited the religious wars were the drivers of the liberal ethos. As you so aptly point out the liberal ethos has been twisting in a dialectic, imo for at least 100 years. The self imploding illiberalism raging against an illiberal turtle, down a never ending dialectic.
In the end the question is where the buck stops? Who is the sovereign? The constitutional strings no longer seem to hold tight the peace. Naked power and collective coercion are used to uphold the latest liberal ethos. In my dreams the political philosophy of Johannes Althusius, local sovereignty, would have taken the day from the pre war era. Alas... we ended up with a Grotius nation state structure.
A good essay but it does not seem to take into account that demographically the Western white man is now a minority and has always been so, and that two thirds of the human population are not Christians.
Furthermore the old order such as it was is now thoroughly dead and incapable of providing the necessary pattern to enable something new to emerge.
The old order (such as it was) essentially destroyed itself via the two world wars, WW2 finished off the process of disintegration/destruction triggered off by WWl The two wars were in effect a spectacular dramatization of a collective fraternal psychosis.
In his 1922 poem The Wasteland T S Eliot described the then situation.
At another level all human beings both individually and collectively are in many stages of psycho-social development both in Western countries (in particular) and in the world altogether.
See for instance the Spiral Dynamics model of such development.
Please also check out this website which (perhaps) provides a comprehensive set of resources to enable/empower the necessary (quite urgent) cultural renewal.
For an English audience, your argument has a few flaws, primarily that the history you cite is very different from that of the English speaking peoples (I assume, since I don't know German history so well.) Fundamentally the issue is that the separation of church and state as two parallel law givers that often cooperate was more deeply entrenched, long before the Reformation. Although even there Henry VIII was a bit of an early adopter of the notion that the king, people and religion are movable parts, not one entity.
In general, it is also worth noting that the Reformation was hardly the first instance of peoples with differing religions living under one secular ruler. Medieval to Renaissance Europe is almost odd in how dominant Catholic Christianity was, although not without many heresies and excommunications. So we ought to be careful when reasoning from the notion that the Reformation brought something new to humanity.
Further, in the English cannon, the liberal system or liberal project is fundamentally a project of Hume and Smith, the latter being specifically the source of the word being used by later legislators in Britain who were referred to as Liberals. (To my understanding; I am about 85% sure there.) Again, this might vary compared to the situation in Germany, but Smith is not only addressing religious differences but also question of speech, what determines proper behavior, slavery and of course all the political economy questions. At the same time the American Revolution and its thinkers were using these ideas as well, hence the Bill of Rights starting out with freedom of religion and speech.
I suppose all that is to say, from the standpoint of the classical liberal from the Scottish and American Enlightenment tradition, one has to ask "What are you talking about? That isn't the history we know." :)
Sorry, but your argument is unconvincing. Liberalism is the cause of modern Man's misery. Period.
A society will strictly operate according to the political formula established by its elites. And that political formula will face persistent demands to legitimate its authority. In the case of Liberalism, it will/has inevitably relent[ed] to the ceaseless call for more liberty and equality/neutrality (originating in 'blank slatism') in order to remain authoritative; hence, why the shift always moves Left (the most earnest liberals). Any substitute political formula would face its own legitimacy demands. The inherent problem in all political formulae is that clever [aspiring] elites will always look to subvert or purify the system.
While I understand the impulse behind the RETVRN movement, I think your post lays out the fundamental flaw. We cannot return to something we don’t even truly understand. Return to the traditional Christianity of centuries ago? Our minds wouldn’t grasp it as they did, our civic sensibilities wouldn’t allow for it.
Inspired piece of writing. Thank you
I think it's a brilliant piece, thank you, even while agreeing (somewhat) with Doctor Hammer's criticisms. I'm tangentially aware of this history through the study of some legal history - specifically western legal history - while in law school, continuing throughout my career lo these last 2.5 decades. There were certainly other, earlier events that I would add in, particularly the growth of a merchant class from as far back as the 1200-1500s. The need for enforcing of promises (the law of contract), the King's courts, the common law, all had a far greater contribution to this than what you've done (again, a gentle criticism - limits of space and thought).
Saying that, I agree with you - you've hit upon a vein here, something important, perhaps even profound.
I'm reminded of a number of other incidents where these things have reared their ugly heads. I was a pilot on a ship off the coast of the Former Republic of Yugoslavia (the FRY, as acronymized it while on deployment) in 1995 when that all was going to complete shit. Neighbors were murdering neighbors, rape camps were established, attempted genocide was going on, etc. And there were no good guys.
The problem with "sectarian" violence is that it doesn't have any possible check on the destruction of The Other. There is no Secular notion of Mercy that is built into Christianity, at least not in the current times.
I don't know what the answer is, but "keep your powder dry" (i.e. stock up on ammo and necessaries) would seem to be prudent advice (always, under any regime not kindly disposed to Me and Mine).
One other, perhaps saving grace, is that the Iron Laws of Economics will eventually assert themselves. You can only print funny money for so long and rob from future Peter to line the pockets of current Paul before it gives up the ghost. I mean to emphasize the possibility fedgov collapsing - and perhaps some new confederation of states may well be a result.
Our fedgov more resembles the idiots in Brussels and at the UN than it does an honest representative government anymore, so there are many, many ways this can all go.
Thanks for the read; I've subscribed as a result.
The answer will come with the conflict and unfolding resolution between the purveyors of gay pride/worship of blacks (Kneeling Nancy)/feminism vs. Russians-Chinese-Islam-Hinduism, I would think.
Russia kicked out Pussy Riot and associated NGOs. China kicked out (supposedly) 500K Africans from Guangdong, Hindus maintain a racially oriented caste system and used the British to cause a separation with Islam, Islam enslaves the infidel.
Thank you for a very interesting article.
I agree with you that we should think historically and contextually.
Something in me struggles to agree with this piece though. I think there are timeless truths. Doesn’t mean they have to be abstract. (To love God and love your neighbour). Yet I agree with you on the ideological abstraction sperg energy that is around at the moment.
I think a consideration of supernatural good and evil would have helped.
Thank you for a thoroughly enjoyable piece. The part that stood out to me and made me want to jump in was when you mentioned universal truth and then somehow dismissed the concept because from an intellectual perspective this is something that cannot be pinned down and shared by the current smorgasbord of factions and disparate cults made up of scatterbrained monkey people that suffer from historical amnesia.
I disagree. I think that universal truth is in fact the only thing that actually exists. The intellectual ramblings of human beings make everything so complicated by comparison. Just because philosophers throughout history have attempted to mine the depths of their intellects and come up with some kind of clunky social equation that will satisfy the needs of the many doesn't mean that they actually hit the jackpot or even that they got anywhere close to experiencing the oneness of all that is.
And certainly not through the practice of thinking about things. That has never lead to anywhere in particular because by it's nature thinking remains on the surface of life and cannot access the deeper roots from whence the thoughts emerged.
Only through the practice of transcending (and certain drugs) can people access the deeper levels of existence and experience the true nature of life and all that is.
Christian totalitarianism begat secular totalitarianism.
Ideological abstraction is indeed a cover for simply naming names and groups in power ruining everything.
Excellent piece. Thanks. I've long intuited the religious wars were the drivers of the liberal ethos. As you so aptly point out the liberal ethos has been twisting in a dialectic, imo for at least 100 years. The self imploding illiberalism raging against an illiberal turtle, down a never ending dialectic.
In the end the question is where the buck stops? Who is the sovereign? The constitutional strings no longer seem to hold tight the peace. Naked power and collective coercion are used to uphold the latest liberal ethos. In my dreams the political philosophy of Johannes Althusius, local sovereignty, would have taken the day from the pre war era. Alas... we ended up with a Grotius nation state structure.
A good essay but it does not seem to take into account that demographically the Western white man is now a minority and has always been so, and that two thirds of the human population are not Christians.
Furthermore the old order such as it was is now thoroughly dead and incapable of providing the necessary pattern to enable something new to emerge.
The old order (such as it was) essentially destroyed itself via the two world wars, WW2 finished off the process of disintegration/destruction triggered off by WWl The two wars were in effect a spectacular dramatization of a collective fraternal psychosis.
In his 1922 poem The Wasteland T S Eliot described the then situation.
At another level all human beings both individually and collectively are in many stages of psycho-social development both in Western countries (in particular) and in the world altogether.
See for instance the Spiral Dynamics model of such development.
Please also check out this website which (perhaps) provides a comprehensive set of resources to enable/empower the necessary (quite urgent) cultural renewal.
http://newrepublicoftheheart.org/resources
For an English audience, your argument has a few flaws, primarily that the history you cite is very different from that of the English speaking peoples (I assume, since I don't know German history so well.) Fundamentally the issue is that the separation of church and state as two parallel law givers that often cooperate was more deeply entrenched, long before the Reformation. Although even there Henry VIII was a bit of an early adopter of the notion that the king, people and religion are movable parts, not one entity.
In general, it is also worth noting that the Reformation was hardly the first instance of peoples with differing religions living under one secular ruler. Medieval to Renaissance Europe is almost odd in how dominant Catholic Christianity was, although not without many heresies and excommunications. So we ought to be careful when reasoning from the notion that the Reformation brought something new to humanity.
Further, in the English cannon, the liberal system or liberal project is fundamentally a project of Hume and Smith, the latter being specifically the source of the word being used by later legislators in Britain who were referred to as Liberals. (To my understanding; I am about 85% sure there.) Again, this might vary compared to the situation in Germany, but Smith is not only addressing religious differences but also question of speech, what determines proper behavior, slavery and of course all the political economy questions. At the same time the American Revolution and its thinkers were using these ideas as well, hence the Bill of Rights starting out with freedom of religion and speech.
I suppose all that is to say, from the standpoint of the classical liberal from the Scottish and American Enlightenment tradition, one has to ask "What are you talking about? That isn't the history we know." :)
Sorry, but your argument is unconvincing. Liberalism is the cause of modern Man's misery. Period.
A society will strictly operate according to the political formula established by its elites. And that political formula will face persistent demands to legitimate its authority. In the case of Liberalism, it will/has inevitably relent[ed] to the ceaseless call for more liberty and equality/neutrality (originating in 'blank slatism') in order to remain authoritative; hence, why the shift always moves Left (the most earnest liberals). Any substitute political formula would face its own legitimacy demands. The inherent problem in all political formulae is that clever [aspiring] elites will always look to subvert or purify the system.